Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 00:01 31/12/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
>"Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough
>consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc
>Blanchet, Andrew Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko,
>Brian Carpenter, John Curran, and Jefsey). Richard
>was requesting a justification (beyond information
>already available) for why the conclusion was what
>it was, and deferring the IESG decision."

Thank you. This is perfectly clear. In my humble opinion, I submit that:

1) as per the IETF rules, there is an IETF rough consensus.
2) in having been pre-decided by a confusing Charter, this 
deliverable seems to proceed from the new non-documented and 
consensually approved  standard process of a post-RFC 6852 IETF fork
3) as a result, it is incomplete, which thereby puts the internet and 
its technology in jeopardy, and impacts the omnistakeholder catenet 
basis and cooperative property.
4) however, this ***can be fully addressed*** by an appeal to the 
IESG, IAB, and ISOC, each in their RFC 2026 capacity,
5) this appeal should raise questions to which positive/negative 
responses should satisfactorily complete and clarify the Draft.

RFC 2026 requires that appeals are made by individuals. I will 
initiate one. It will not oppose the rough IETF consensus delivered 
by this WG, but rather its lack of clarity outside of the IETF, in 
the light of RFC 3869, RFC 3935, RFC 6852, the NTIA Statement, the 
NMI, the MYCANN Plugs-in, etc. The need is to know if the IETF 
intends or not to put the humanity's catenet in jeopardy by not 
cooperating with non-I*core technical initiatives or existing RFC 
6852 innovations/responses by other national, global, and several communities.

This is not that easy, and this is why I certainly welcome privately 
and/or publicly useful help and comments from everyone.
Happy new year to all of you.

jfc