Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 09:57 27/11/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:
>
>"The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only rough
>consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
>taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
>ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the outcome
>does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
>work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."
>
>Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification for
>the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

Richard,

The way I see the things is rather simple.

Vint Cerf has initiated the Internet project with two objectives and 
a vision. The vision was a new definition of "locality", that one may 
now qualify of "networked glocality".

The first objective was to build its catenet, i.e. its transport 
stratum. The non completion of the second objective before the USA 
could swallow it was then discovered (due to architectural lacks vs. 
deployment advantages) as a national necessity. This has been taken 
care by the IETF and politically engineered by the USG in
- pushing for its technology to be used for the world digital 
ecosystem main value added network,
- using the ICANN single-root lie,
- and in keeping the whole thing subject to the1984 born statUS-quo strategy.

This was an exceptional process where the USG patched the involved 
global issues by transferring control from its Legislative branch's 
domestic/international FCC agency to its Executive NTIA agency. This 
exceptional situation has come to an end when Obama has directly 
directed the FCC on Internet neutrality domestic issues. Not the NTIA 
on global neutrality issues (we know why).


Now, time is about an IETF's deliverables 
domestic/industrial/international review. Feelings are mixed. 
Theoritically, the IETF has the leadership, and IAB the dominance for 
a simple reason: the network has to work. IAB is therefore 
responsible for the past and the future of the Internet. However, 
many are technologically unhappy (most did not know why, until 
Snowden's and FCC/Obama's help) and for others they are happy of the 
money they do.

Until August 22, 2012, responsibility was then with the IAB/ISOC. 
Since then it is to the community of technical communities addressing 
their community's economic requirements (cf. RFC 6852). Until a week 
ago responsibility for past and future internet issues was with the 
IETF. Russ  Housley's admonition for an hardened protocol stack makes 
the IETF only responsible for the future internet. The Chairs' rough 
consensus shows that among the true "IETF natives" the consensus is 
that the IETF is working for the future internet, but is not responsible.

The question you ask is the basis of my future appeal, once the IETF 
Last-Call has most probably confirmed this IETF hidden abdication.

My point will not be to change it, but to make sure that the IESG, 
and IAB, and ISOC, fully and publicly declare that they understand, 
accept and decide that this is what they mean.  Please note that this 
I_D is co-authored by the IAB Chair, former IETF Chair in 2012.

This is important because it will show there is no conflict calling 
for a fork; but an accepted seamless transition from 
datacommunications to metacommunications. The same as we had that 
transition in 1977 from telecommunications to datacommunications. I 
remember the surprise of the ITU people when I went there to adhere 
as an US Datacommunications Operator  :-).

jfc