Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] SSAC Report on the IANA Functions contract

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 01:51 20/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>JFC Morfin wrote:
>>At 22:13 19/10/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are 
>>>the authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over 
>>>into a post-NTIA world.
>>
>>Dear Miles,
>>
>>I understand and agree with your analysis (and I can innovatively 
>>explain it with scientific rigor), BUT that is provided the IETF 
>>technology is the only acceptable/possible digital network 
>>technology, and the way it is managed is agreed by everyone.
>
>Appreciate the concurrence, but beg to differ that we're talking 
>about technology here.  The topic is on the table is governance, 
>specifically governance of protocols and numbering for a specific 
>infrastructure, the Internet.


Dear Miles,

We are discussing the overlooked fundamental layer that can help 
everyone understand the issue.

However, we need to be clear about the real matter. As you say, the 
topic on the table is governance, but governance of the international 
use of a given uncompleted technology within the circumstances of a 
given operational strategy. My reading is that the topic is on the 
table because the technology leaders (RFC 6852) have (IMHO, correctly 
but incompletely) evaluated that the market forces are competitively 
completing the technology - what is going to affect the operational 
strategy - and modify the economical/political/commercial equilibrium.

I fully realize that we both see the situation from our respective 40 
year old American and International technical and political 
backgrounds. This is why I think that we can bring this debate to its 
real level and question: will we have a seamless or a competitive 
transition from the IEN 48 first to second motivations.


>By analogy - IEEE is the accepted standards body and registrar for 
>all things related to Ethernet - including, not only protocols, but 
>things like UUIDs.  For the Internet, IETF is essentially playing 
>the same role - with some aspects (names, numbers) being done by 
>several other bodies.

Yes. The question is simple: do IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, and W3C cover 
today the entire digital technology spectrum? This WG assumes that 
the answer is yes and accepts a governance status quo on its faith in 
an architectural status quo (what does not prevent technological innovations).

I have full respect for believers, but I am afraid that we are 
confronted with an over conservative faith vision. There is an 
architectonical (what concerns architectures) dichotomy between the 
IETF offering and the markets' (identified as technically competing 
"global communities" on economic grounds by our leaders) needs. In 
more practical terms and IETF language: the IETF end to end does not 
match the fringe to fringe needs, and as a result the digital 
governance is unstabilized by the edge provision (and this is just 
the beginning of big data).


>>We know that this is not the case. Three points extensively 
>>documented by experience, analysis, books, documents of reference, 
>>etc. show it:
>>
>>- the NTIA oversight is only an avatar of the 1977 initiated 
>>variation of the USG regulation of a universal service - that is 
>>still subsidized. The NTIA transition is only an adaptation of this 
>>regulation 40 years later on, taking into consideration the change 
>>of scale in use and locality.
>
>Wow, is that not the case.  Internet governance - by NTIA and others 
>is incredibly far from the regimes imposed on telecom. carriers by 
>the FCC and state Public Utility Commissions - stemming from a 
>legislative tradition dating back to the 1910 Mann-Elkins Act (wrote 
>a book chapter on the evolution of US telecom regulation at one 
>point).  The machinations that the Internet community went through 
>to avoid any such regulation were pretty intense, back in the day. 
>Arguably, we (in the US at least) would be better off in terms of 
>things like "network neutrality" if Internet access networks were 
>subject to common carrier regulation.

This is probably overlooking a few deregulation issues and the global 
context (as we saw in Dubai). However, on a triple decade basis we 
agree: what the NTIA is attempting is a "smart return to the past". 
To bring back the enhanced services under regulation, a quite 
different and adapted form of regulation, but regulation all the 
same. I am not against the idea, but if we do not want a technical 
civil war, we are better to discuss it as such as incumbents (IETF, 
ICANN, RIRs stakeholders) have to adapt and welcome newcomers (from 
my point of view those I call the IUsers, with an "I" standing for 
many characteristics, including "inventive".

Does the IETF want a competition or an alliance with the IUsers? This 
is the question. IUsers are not well understood/accepted as a 
community yet, except as the "paying one" ("consumers"). IMHO, in an 
economy driven technology (RFC 6852), the future is on the purses' side.

>>- the internet architecture is blocked since 1983. This is the 
>>"status-quo" US strategy: IETF has never scaled above the first IEN 
>>48 motivation (a global TCP/IP catenet) and engaged in the second 
>>motivation (a TCP/IP Tymnet). It planned it, it did not do it, but 
>>the world is engaged in the process. This makes innovation an 
>>uncertain parameter. Lower layers may very well stay stable 
>>(probably not the way you see it, because there is no real 
>>"voluntary" SDO at these layers anymore, but along RFC 6852). The 
>>architecture is opening through the economically based technical 
>>competition among "global communities". Plural. This means that the 
>>"technical market power" (capacity to impose its standards by 
>>market influence) of DARPA, NSA, USCC is progressively affected by 
>>what can be called an "intelligent use by economic necessity".
>
>Of course one might argue that the Internet is precisely scoped as 
>an operational TCP/IP catenet - with a highly evolved governance 
>mechanism.  And that is the scope of the governance issues on the 
>table.  And, compared to other telecom regulatory environments 
>(e.g., the telephone network), far more open to evolution and 
>innovation - that's something that's working pretty well - no need to break it.

Correct. However, while you are correctly using plural for 
"environments", you are only referring to the telephone lower 
stratum, and implicitly opposing the ITU and, therefore, the UN. This 
is where you are breaking the system pile. There is a progress toward 
the upper layers. Status quo breaks the momentum in freezing the 
architectonic evolution.

The UN takes care of the ground. ITU takes care of the bandwidth. 
IEEE takes care of the hardware. IETF takes care of the software. I 
am interested in brainware (a more general and plural word for your 
"highly evolved governance mechanism") and in its ground, structural, 
hardware, and software support.

The question I am asking over and over again, under different ways, 
is simple. How long can brainware dynamic be supported only by the 
existing IETF layers and the ICANN monopoly? When is a new SDO to be 
created, and how it is to be pragmatically organized to best 
consolidate the common good work achieved so far?

Cheers,

jfc