Re: [Ianaplan] Adrian Farrel's No Record on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: (with COMMENT)

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

>NEW:
>
>Because the IETF is open to everyone, participation is open to all
>stakeholders.  IETF processes outlined in Section I were used to
>develop this proposal.  Those same processes have been and shall be
>used to amend governance of the protocol parameters function.  As
>mentioned previously, anyone may propose amendments to those
>processes, and anyone may take part in the decision process.

Dear Eliot,
the problem is deeper. The IETF deliverables are the RFCs. They are 
opened to those interested in writting them.

Once delivered and used, protocols parameters are situational advises 
on the way to be use the RFCs. Some other newcomer technologies may 
use the incumbent's technology in a specific way calling for their 
own parameters.

These other technologies are users, and the I*core is in competition 
to propose the internet solution. Until now the IAB was the defacto 
referent of the I*core. This I_D (and the way the Shepherd chose to 
report the WG) show that the IAB is no more able to assume that 
responsibility. Accepted.

The remaining problem is that in this new RFC 6852 context the real 
leader is economy, i.e. ICANN advised by the WEP rather than the ISOC 
board or the NTIA. And that the IET is not prepared to this. Nobody 
care that the IETF is open to everyone: what counts is what kind of 
use economy, utilization, politics can have of its deliverable.

In forking from the IETF I just note that your deliverables are still 
good but no more intended for the today's market where the IETF is no 
more the only source in town. As was the ITU's at the end of the 80s 
(however we still use their bandwidth oriented standards and respect 
their authority). So, as IUsers we have to find an alternative to the 
8000 RFCs complexus.

Just my 2cents in the deserto.

Deep thanks for the great dedicated work you did with this draft.

Best
jfc


>This text is somewhat more directed at the question.  I do not 
>propose to make a distinction between the different forms of 
>multistakeholderism, although I agree with Richard that there are 
>different forms.  Our response is clearly within the bounds of what 
>the NTIA and the ICG has discussed.
>
>Eliot
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan