Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 20:33 19/02/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>IANAL, but the formal beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF. It's for
>the Trust to ask its own counsel whether this matters.
>
>That doesn't affect what this WG says, though

No, Brian. In this case this affects the interest for stability of 
the internet community. The IETF Turst is asked to accept a 
responsibility for all the users. Not to decide anything. I am not 
anymore considering my corporation and its users as bond by IETF 
technical decisions that have to be approved by the NTIA/FCC. 
However, it is of common interest for everyone that e-USA and 
e-Europe, e-Libre, as well as the other e-Global Communities go well 
together (cf. RFC 6852).

My point was only a point of internal consistency of the e-US 
Community, so it does not imballance the other communities. We have 
now to think in terms of our own WG-Draft. The IAB iana.arpa is no 
more the TCP/IP referent. It is for the NTIA/FCC led e-US Community 
the NTIA/FCC approved iana.org operator. I only hope we can manage to 
keep it consistent with its equivalent operators on behalf of the 
other communities.

The global community technology/names/numbers/parameters of the 
network of networks is the new concept affirmed on Jan 8, 2015. It is 
new, but it is fully consistant with the RFC 6852 modern paradigm. 
Howevern I am afraid this has not been made fully plained yet by our 
leaders. Hence my pending appeal.

Best
jfc