Re: [Ianaplan] Taking a step toward the IANA Transition

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 15:38 08/01/2015, Eliot Lear wrote:

>Jari and I have put together a short blog on where we are.  This working
>group in particular should be pleased with its work.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/
>
>Eliot

Jari and Eliot,

I do not understand. Is the draft to be published as an RFC, yes or 
no? This is not immaterial: since if it is to be published I only 
have until March 6, 2015 to file an appeal, of which the matter is 
now clarified by the eventual IESG choice of a US leadership on the 
IETF technology that you made official yesterday. Lynn St-Amour is 
rightly pleased. Many are most probably not.


You fully understand that the sentence "When ready, they will submit 
the final proposal to the NTIA. The NTIA must then consider and 
approve the proposal", being co-signed by the IETF Chair, is of a 
purely political nature and cannot have anything to do with any 
technical norm concerning my and people's personal Catenet properties.

Therefore, there was a global 
IETF. 
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/ 
changed that: you have now formally published that it forked to a USIETF.


One of the IETF core values was to responsibly decide on an 
"omnistakeholder" rough consensus basis. If the NTIA is now to first 
approve its propositions, why not China, Russia, Germany, UK, France, 
etc.? And/or Google, Apple, Xerox, NSA, etc.?

There can only be one single authoritative internet technical 
sovereignty: http://iana.arpa. It owns this sovereignty because:

- there must be a "Respectful cooperation between standards 
organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, 
processes, and intellectual property rules of the others" (RFC 6852).
-  "Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to 
appeal decisions",
-  Users and people may uniquely identify it and freely adhere to it, 
thereby forming the Internet global community.

The RFC 2026 Internet standards process has not thus far required 
anyone to "submit the final proposal to the NTIA, for the NTIA to 
consider and approve", unless the NTIA is the new IAB's name as the 
"Network Technical Independent Authority".

Perhaps I am wrong: this was probably before, when "Standards 
activities [were] not exclusively dominated by any particular person, 
company, [] interest group [or nation]" (cf. RFC 6852).


I appealed RFC 6852 because it did not clarify who its ultimate 
referent was. We now know that it is the USG. I beg to disagree, 
however, because nations, like the internet, form neither a 
hierarchical nor a decentralized but rather a distributed network. 
You crossed the border between technology and policy, between what is 
to be technically and what some may want to be: thi way you 
unfortunately but definitely put the IETF technology in jeopardy and 
politically fragmented the internet after RFC 6852 tried to patch its 
technical fragmentation risks. I frankly doubt this is what Lawrence 
E. Strickling wanted the world to perceive.

Sorry.
jfc