Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

>At 20:25 30/04/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Do I understand this to mean that IETF wants to get it's RFP 
>response to ICG activated and operational before conclusion of the 
>transition process?

The IETF has stated its position on 20150108: "The NTIA must then 
consider and approve the proposal. Finally, it must be 
implemented...the IETF leadership is committed to ensuring a good 
outcome for the Internet."

>On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
><<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>I don't think so.

>Great. This is the response i expected and i would have been 
>surprised if otherwise. Based on above then it may be important to 
>clarify the section of the IAB chair's(your) statement below:
>Understanding this consensus[i.e the IANAPLAN],

Under appeal.

>the IETF leadership have been negotiating with ICANN to include text 
>to satisfy these points in our annual Service Level Agreement.

Not concerned by the IANAPLAN since ICANN is still under NTIA 
contract, which may still last for three years.

>After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the 
>IETF consensus[i.e the consensus achieved on IANAPLAN which has been 
>submitted to ICG]

Cannot have been "submitted", as it is not an RFC and is under the 
appeal process.

>The interpretation of the statement above could imply that IETF 
>wants to make operational the proposal that came out of IANAPLAN. It 
>is based on that, that i think the response from ICANN below may not 
>be entirely out of order:
>
>After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the 
>IETF consensus[i.e the proposal from IANAPLAN],

There is no IETF consensus as yet. It is still subject to the IAB and 
possibly ISOC response to the relevant RFC 2026 appeal(s).

>but ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text 
>right now.

This seems reasonable since this text does not formally exist right 
now, and the appeal implies either an IAB real control, or a 
practical accountability to a cross RFC 6852 global-community 
multi/omnistakeholderist governance and control under discussion/investigation.

>So generally speaking (and based on information available to me), it 
>seem this is a timing issue and there may just be need to clarify 
>from ICANN if they are fine with agreeing with the term post-NTIA.
>As you have rightly stated, I believe the current agreement 
>should-be/is sufficient enough at ensuring IETF continue to get its 
>usual IANA function service.

This may be the case in the context of Jari's 20150108 commitment 
that a part of the Internet Community does not accept.
As a result, there are 36 formal questions from the Relationnels 
Libres global community that the IESG was unable to answer. This is 
something the IAB may still do.

---

The problem is that the ICANNET is technically bugged.

A BUG (in this case, the ICANN/NTIA/FCC - seemingly IETF supported - 
"Being Unilaterally Global" bug), whatever the number of people being 
affected and possibly happy with it, is still a bug. And some will 
want a patch. A patch is a patch, but there may be many and 
non-compatible patches.

Today, the alternative sources of patches are: the Global I*Community 
and the rest of the world. The appeal process gives the possibility 
to the Global I*Community to consider the situation and propose its 
own patch. If this patch was acceptable to the multitude as being 
innovatively intelligent and distributed network oriented, it might 
avoid a disarray of multiple competitive patches, what might place 
the internet in a significant jeopardy everyone, including us, will 
try to survive with patches to the multi-patch problem.

This will be up to Andrew, and possibly to Bob Hinden, to make a 
responsible decision.

In focussing questions we hope reducing the number of "MYCANN 
Plugs-in" to "Relationnels Libres" and a few countries and/or 
corps/fundations. Right now the French "Super-Patriot-Act" debate, in 
TIPP/ACTA context, helps us refining our own project toward a 
resillient, protected VGN, fringe to fringe lab test project.

Regards
jfc

>Regards
>
>>I just reviewed the minutes from IETF 91 at
>><http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan. 
>>To
>>me, it was plain that we were just planning to include items in our
>>negotiation this year (I spent about 3 minutes looking for an email
>>thread to that effect, too, in which I seem to recall having
>>participated). None of that negotiation entails that it needs to be
>>completed before the ICG has proceeded.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>A (as ever, speaking for myself)
>>Andrew Sullivan
>><mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]