Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal

JFC Morfin <> Tue, 04 August 2015 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B921B392C for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.949
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXfZt0nQD9Ll for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2791ACDBA for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:57886 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZMd94-00054Y-HC; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 07:24:47 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:24:40 +0200
To: Jari Arkko <>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
From: JFC Morfin <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1170469027==.ALT"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:27:09 -0000

Dear Jari,

My only comment is that all of this ICANN behemoth seems to be a 
violation of RFC 3439's principle of  simplicity. The only way to 
check if I am right or wrong is experimentation. Since the IANA 
transfer will not occur before the Iowa Caucus, this gave us (IUsers) 
more time for organizing an applied investigation.

1. by an experimentation oriented XLIBRE RFC 6852 global community 
2. with its own experimental "FL" (Free/LIBRE) DNS CLASS
3. considering its own experimental networking technology architecture
4. for a "post-techno/logic singularity" multilingistics (as the 
inter-languages cybernetics) experimental R&D
5. for a multitechnology and multimutual documentation exploration 
flexible referential system
6. for an experimental alternative to multistakeholder governance 
under the form of omnistakeholder cooperance.
7. based upon an extended model of network primitives 
(architectonics) and resulting ambitions (permissionless innovation).

The first thing will be for us to test and report on the incumbents' 
attitude toward our civil testers community (we are looking for 
pertinence, not for crowds: a bug fix is a bug fix. Whoever patched 
it. The rest is a matter of network propagation and time.


At 22:13 03/08/2015, Jari Arkko wrote:
>If people have more specific comments on, say, details of the CRISP 
>or CWG proposals, it might be best for you to submit those 
>yourselves in the public comment process.
>The public comment period ends on September 8. The IANA program will 
>start crafting some text, but it would be good to get initial 
>feedback now to help shape it.
>Ianaplan mailing list