Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

Dear Russ,

I thank you for this confirmation of the IAB/IETF determination irt. 
the Internet end to end parameters after the ambiguous publication of 
the OpenStand RFC 6852 which does not define a common referent after 
the inclusion of ISOC, IEEE and W3C as a common readers of the 
economic requirements of the global communities.

As personnally trying to clarify the terms of the multistakeholder 
governance of global information both for IUsers and multitechnology 
VGN individual, private and public operators I understand that there 
is a consensus of my interlocutors to trust, rely on, respect, and 
enforce the IETF structural parameters, and the IETF repartition of 
operational parameters.

The intent is to channel the technical concerns via the IUCG and 
cooperate through the VGNICS experimental enhanced cooperation 
proposition under formalization (http://vgnics.net) and its MDRS 
(http://vgnics.net/mdrs) for the collection, validation and diffusion 
of fringe to fringe information made avaliable to VGNIC managers and 
DNS services operators. The intent is also to keep IAB  informed of 
the efforts of documentation consolidation and/or translation.

We certainly understand the importance - up to now illustrated by the 
US and a few other Governements - to be able to organize the Internet 
operations both in global continuity and in taking into account 
national needs, in particular in case of catastrophe or critical 
situations. The strategy wich seems to be demanded is a neutrality of 
information on a neutral end to end global network, of which the 
higher layers will be kept transparent to any fringe to fringe technology.

Best regards.
jfc

At 18:28 24/02/2014, IAB Chair wrote:
>Existing IETF and IAB consensus concerning Internet registry functions
>and IANA are documented in a variety of RFCs and IAB communications
>[RFC2860,RFC6220,IAB1,IAB2].  Since registry functions and IANA are
>likely to be the subject of discussion in a number of venues outside the
>IETF over the coming months and years, the IAB is seeking community
>feedback about operating principles to use when they find themselves
>involved in those discussions.
>
>While dealing with these issues the IAB has consistently approached the
>issues from a set of (implicit) principles.  Since the registry functions
>are subject of discussion in various fora, the IAB has tried to make
>these operating principles explicit and seeks to confirm these with the
>community.
>
>The IAB are planning to use part of the time in the IGOVUPDATE session at
>IETF 89 (6 March 2014, 17:00-18:30 GMT) for a discussion of such operating
>principles.  But we wanted to kick-start that discussion with a few
>thoughts about principles that the IAB and IETF have articulated in
>various documents already and some that have emerged over time but may
>not have been written down.  What we are interested in is an articulation
>of what the IETF community values.  What other parties (ICANN, RIRs,
>governments, etc.) value when they think about registry functions is
>interesting, but we want to focus this discussion on the IETF and not
>those other parties.
>
>This is a first cut of making the principles more explicit for which we
>seek your views.
>
>Some of these might seem a bit generic, but it is difficult to predict
>the nature of future discussions in which IETF and IAB leaders might find
>themselves, so generality helps in that regard.
>
>On behalf of the IAB,
>   Russ Housley
>   IAB Chair
>
>= = = = = = = =
>
>Principles Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries
>
>1. The IETF protocol parameters function has been and continues to be
>capably provided by the Internet community.
>
>The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within the
>Internet community are both important given how critical protocol
>parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF protocols.
>
>We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters function
>needs be strong enough that they can be offered independently by the
>Internet community, without the need for backing from external parties.
>And we believe we largely are there already, although the system can be
>strengthened further, and continuous improvements are being made.
>
>2. The administration of the protocol parameters function by ICANN is
>working well for the Internet and the IETF.
>
>We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the protocol
>parameter function and the coordination of the evaluation of
>registration requests through the IANA function provided by ICANN.
>
>3. The IETF protocol parameters function requires openness,
>transparency, and accountability.
>
>Existing documentation of how the function is administered and overseen
>is good [RFC2860,RFC6220], but further articulation and clarity may be
>beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet community can
>understand how the function works, and that the processes for
>registering parameters and holding those who oversee the protocol
>parameter function accountable for following those processes are
>understood by all interested parties. We are committed to making
>improvements here if necessary.
>
>4. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters function should
>use the current RFCs and model as the starting point.
>
>The protocol parameters function is working well, and as a result
>wholesale changes to the role of the IETF vis a vis the function are not
>warranted. The IETF/IANA Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] is a good
>model to work from in the event that other parties do want to contemplate
>changes. Put quite simply: evolution, not revolution.
>
>5. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service by
>Internet registries.
>
>The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not just
>IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and other
>registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined protocols.
>Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards development, architectural
>guidance, and allocation of certain name/number parameters to continue.
>IP multicast addresses and special-use DNS names are two examples where
>close coordination is needed.  The IETF will continue to coordinate with
>ICANN, the RIRs, and other parties that are mutually invested in the
>continued smooth operation of the Internet registries. We fully
>understand the need to work together.
>
>6.  The IETF will continue its direction and stewardship of the protocol
>parameters function as an integral component of the IETF standards
>process and the use of resulting protocols.
>
>RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters
>registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF
>protocols.  We see no need to revisit or reconsider our current approach
>with regard to protocol parameters, including the ability to delegate
>operational responsibility for registries to other organizations.
>
>[RFC2860] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt
>[RFC6220]  http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6220.txt
>[IAB1] 
>http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/2009-06-08-IAB-NTIA-NOI-final.pdf
>[IAB2] 
>http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internetgovtech mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech