Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Jefsey <> Mon, 19 January 2015 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA131B2B08 for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:11:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.632
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5ddDmD9AQ0Q for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B69B81B2B13 for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:41125 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YDEt3-0005jU-QP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:09:10 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:09:03 +0100
To: Seun Ojedeji <>,Alissa Cooper <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6icxGUeR2y6ov=BqZP+GbE+oOpS2mX_4uRM-LZY6mfFhw@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1400270949==.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
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:11:58 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 16:09 19/01/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>I will say i observed some level of IETF community experience making 
>great influence in the proposal development, nevertheless the "not 
>so IETF experienced" me agree on the group decision with regards to 
>the IPR on <> I think Richard may 
>want to further clarify the section of his mail below (especially 
>the one in bold as a non-legal me tend to disagree):
>  .....the IETF proposal does not adequately address certain issues, 
> in particular: (a)
>replacing the existing IANA functions contract between NTIA and ICANN with
>an equivalent legally binding contract for what concerns protocol parameters
>(the current MoU between ICANN and IETF is probably not a legally binding

Dear Seun,

Things are politically binding by virtue of the NTIA which is assumed 
to be gone by Sept 15, 2015. This is why we can only trust the last 
public commitment and the cross-protocol documentation (in being 
prepared it may changed). Please remember Brian Carpenter's RFC 1958. 
"Architectural Principles of the Internet": "Principles that seemed 
inviolable a few years ago are deprecated today. Principles that seem 
sacred today will be deprecated tomorrow. The principle of constant 
change is perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should 
survive indefinitely".

This WG has published a soon-to-be-forgot Draft. Its only virtue will 
be its RFC number and the time-stamp of the ISOC response to my 
appeal. It will be the self-acknowledged date of the end of the IET 
Internet exclusive on the Catenet. From then on, it will be clear 
that catenet users will be free to use non-IETF internet coopetitive 
innovation as per RFC 6852. As per these OpenStand 
IEEE/IAB/IETF/W3C/ISOC rules ICANN will continue to operate in 
parallel with other national, Libre and commercial IANA/DNS propositions.

What is important is to make sure there is no name, number or 
parameter collision.