[iucg] Follow-up on RFC 6852 appeal and on Google Incidents
JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sun, 25 August 2013 01:12 UTC
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677DF11E81BF for <iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.313
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pi+7t27cIJPY for <iucg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B42F11E81C8 for <iucg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:50602 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1VDOry-0006B0-J9; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:11:54 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:11:48 +0200
To: Bob Hinden <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>, iab@iab.org, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <20130825011156.7B42F11E81C8@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org
Subject: [iucg] Follow-up on RFC 6852 appeal and on Google Incidents
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
List-Id: internet users contributing group <iucg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg>
List-Post: <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>, <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 01:12:03 -0000
NB. I only use the iab@iab list in order to not get filtered because of the use of too many addresses. ---- Dear Chairs, I am waiting for Bob Hinden's indications concerning the process of the ISOC third phase of my RFC 6852 appeal. I am asked to add a new concern exemplified by the recent unexplained Google difficulties (short interruption of service, no explanation available for the requests of captcha to users [access providers and end users alike]). Due to the size of the Google system, this is also of a general architectural and possibly architectonical concern along RFC 3439 and a part of the dialogue Russ encouraged me to maintain about the next steps with OpenStand. One of the points of this concern of mine (cf. appeals and previous mail) is how OpenStand will ensure an "adequate and sufficient protection of the rights of all parties in a fair and open end to end Internet Standards Process". I might illustrate this through the market oriented need of a quality of use information protocol in case of network neutrality violation (end to end) or service provider (end) instability. The internet is not free. End-users pay: - with their money, the use of the common network resources assumed by the various operators - and with their "microtimes" spent for making the service providers' advertising available to them. When access is interrupted or when a disproportionate overpayment is claimed (time and effort wasted to enter a captcha or waste of time due to the interruption of a legitimate automated interrogation process), they should be compensated at least with an explanation and a microtime credit (no advertising for an equivalent microtime amount). Until RFC 6852, along with RFC 3935, the technology documentation was on a best effort basis for it to work better for all so an internet "disaster" could be considered as an "act of God". Now, the technology is to be documented in the best interest of markets and global communities and, therefore, disasters will be claimed to possibly result from human architectural choices, i.e. "OpenStand acts", grounded on no architectonical certitude or legally/internationally approved consensus. My point is to initiate a debate toward such a consensus in order to be precautionarily formalized. The appeal is, therefore, to call the attention: - of OpenStand on the necessity of a debate that would protect its members and every good faith technologist, and ethitechnically influence the pursuit of an information society common cultural esthetic; of the other regalian domain's, civil society's, private sector's, and international organization's stakeholders on an apparent opposition of OpenStand to such a debate. To show this opposition, I have two public speaking yes/no tests: -- a clearly documented appeal procedure matching the precautionary rights and duties (which are constitutional in France) that so far the IESG and IAB responses did not consider. -- a real time network non-neutrality/instability incident reporting protocol, permitting every concerned use/user to trigger security and economic adequate responses. Nobody denied the need yet, but where should it be discussed and agreed upon, except in an enhanced cooperation structure like the IGF, the IETF and IAB do not attend. I am certainly interested in any possible comment on these matters which illustrate the question posed by the lack of IDNA2008 and now RFC 6852 disclaimer: what is today the consensual ultimate referent in terms of internet technology, Datacommunications architecture and Digital architectonics? Should we revert to ITU, ISO, JTC1, UN? jfc