[iucg] prior to he today virtual meeting

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 10:35 04/10/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
>Jefsey,
>
> > I am sorry, but my various efforts in order to avoid an appeal 
> against the charter's status-quo spirit and letter did not succeed so far.
>
>For what it is worth, I do not plan to update the charter at this 
>time. I believe the current charter is supported by IETF consensus, 
>as determined by the IESG during the WG Review of this charter. Not 
>only was IETF-wide WG Review held (with an announcement to other 
>SDOs), but there was also a BOF held at the previous IETF meeting. 
>In both instances, the community was insistent that the WG not be 
>given the latitude to change current operational procedures.
>
>Jari Arkko (speaking as the responsible AD for the WG)

Dear Jari (as an IESG chair and WG/IANAPLAN AD),

As you know, I am planning to appeal the IESG 08 Sep 2014 09:02:52 
-0700 decision to adopt the WG/IANAPLAN Charter, but I wish we could 
avoid the implied work load and hassle.

The target so far (some additional elements may result from today's 
virtual meeting report) is for the internet users' various community 
layers (individual, local, corporate, national, governmental) to be 
able to assess the capacity and motivation of the IETF to continue 
documenting a technically better internet when a-priori strategies 
are decided on that are based upon economic motives and governmental 
injunctions, as it would seem to be the case for the response to the 
unclear NTIA unilateral March 14, 2014 announcement.

Two parts in the charter seem to be critical for the stability of the 
Internet community and technology:

1. "In the case of the elements of the IANA function concerning the 
IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the existing 
well-documented practices will continue and no or little new activity 
will be required." This is something that contradicts the RFC 6852 
assessment of digital world reality. Only considering the status quo 
in a fundamentally changing situation, as the Chair (Leslie Daigle) 
assigned it to the WG, is either an deliberate (why?) ostrich policy 
or a hidden coordination with the authors of the change.

2. "Should proposals made by other communities regarding the 
transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter 
registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them." 
This wording is not only contemptuous of other communities, but also 
to all internet users since it permits the WG to not consider inputs 
from other stakeholders, to select the stakeholders it "could" listen 
to, and to not address the positive or negative impact of their 
positions on the common good. The Chair (Marc Blanchet) said that the 
WG would consider every proposal. It is necessary for the AD and 
Chairs to formally commit to what they will consider, comment on, and 
address regarding the announcements and/or proposals made by all 
other stakeholders.

Now, we are facing a problem of timing. At the ICANN's request, the 
January 15 milestone is a rough consensus over a complete protocol 
parameters registries document.

- The appeal limit date is November 8, 2014. I hope that I do not 
need that long (all of us want quick clarifications since we are 
engaged in status quo or innovative solution projects) but this may 
depend on today's virtual meeting.
- If the IESG responds negatively the same day, I could appeal the 
IAB until January 8, 2015.
- Again, the IAB could respond negatively the same day and stay ahead 
of the January 15 date.
- However, such fast responses would certainly give me good grounds 
to appeal ISOC.

This is why I suggest that we try to play this out reasonably, 
keeping political interests, the press, and sponsors aside. The 
difficulty that we are facing is simple to evaluate. The USG's and 
OECD's internet governance vision that the NTIA is trying to sneak-in 
was multilaterally and democratically defeated in Dubai. This vision 
is questioned by the users, when the WSIS has consensually declared 
that the information society was to be people [and not business or 
jurisdiction] centered, decisions are to be made on a 
multistakeholder (govs, business, civil society) basis, and the 
I*Society's mantra is that the internet is for everyone to use, 
innovate, experiment on, and deploy. The NTIA multistakeholder 
reduced the mutual recognition constraints in reference of  govs and 
lead users are diplomatically pious vows. They will do what they 
want. Datagrams do not really care about diplomatic announcements.

We know that there is a wide portion of the Internet users that 
disagrees with the NTIA's idea that ICANN is to protect them from 
their own Governments and who trust their own political and Defense 
national institutions (they pay for that through their taxes) to 
engage in active precautionary strategies, at least when public and 
private NSAs are concerned.

The IETF's job is not to judge whether these people are right or 
wrong. It is to technically ensure that its published set of protocol 
rules will best adapt to their needs and the resulting situational 
changes, and that these people trust them. Otherwise, such people and 
Govs will patch their own contingency plan and technical solutions 
(or have them ready). I know this well because I am, as you know, 
carrying that out myself, for my local non-profit Libre digital 
operator and my fellow independent involved etc. users.

  jfc