Re: [Ianaplan] numbers community plan

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 00:26 08/01/2015, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>happy new year!
>Following up the note John Curran sent to this list 
>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01482.html) 
>  with the pointer to the draft numbers community plan 
>(https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group), 
>are there any issues that we believe the IAB should consider 
>flagging and discussing?  For the purposes of this WG's discussion, 
>the focus should be scoped to issues that might affect the IETF 
>protocol parameter registries, not general opinions on the numbers 
>proposal [1].

Dear Marc and Leslie,

I wish a Happy New Year to the two splitting strata: catenet and 
internet. I have tried for years to jointly accommodate their 
parallel evolution under the IETF. The life of this WG has led me to 
crash create the IUWG.net to stay in line with RFC 6852 ***and*** 
independent from the BCP 78 Internet license. The Catenet, i.e. the 
people's global common substructure of the different RFC 6852 "global 
communities"' technologies, calls for an OpenUse approach that is to 
be explored, determined, and documented.

I identify two needs.

1. for the IETF family to publicly acknowledge that the situation 
that some of them have described through the RFC 6852 is not a 
multistakeholder situation led by the I*core but rather a 
permissionless innovation omnistakeholder configuration. This means 
that the I*core must identify itself as a global community among 
other Catenet user global communities. This calls for at least two things:

-  ISOC to state it in one way or another (and this is where an 
appeal seems necessary)
-  and a single interfacing IETF technology window to be given to the 
world, which I think is to be "http://iana.arpa".

2. The people's Catenet multitechnology support capacity is to be 
discussed and documented, i.e. the way each CPU/OS/fringe/edge 
communicates is to be supported by the various end to end 
technologies, including the Internet ones (IPv4/v6), Rosettanet, NDN, 
SDNs, Ethernet, Libre's interplus, etc.

Today, the IETF, IAB, IEEE, ISOC, W3C, and others have jointly  but 
still incompletely accepted this situation. ICANN has not: they want 
to use their CLASS "IN" control, IP address influence, and their US 
jurisdiction to control the Catenet.

Jari is probably right in not necessarily wishing to publish the 
Ianaplan document as an RFC. That plan is about the way the IETF 
wants the IAOC to negotiate the ICANN http://iana.arpa accountability 
framework. I disapprove of the text in part but I have no reason to 
appeal the decision of asking it.

In such a case, I will document a Catenet oriented openuse I_D 
including the ICANN/ICP-3 rules and the proposition of a joint WG on 
a multitechnology oriented IANA protocol. If it is published by the 
RFC Editor, the situation will be clarified and I could adhere to 
OpenStand. If it is not, then a formal appeal to IESG/IAB/ISOC will 
be necessary, but it will be on simpler/clearer grounds for everyone.

Best,

jfc