Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] IANAPLAN virtual meeting

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 15:46 22/09/2014, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>The IANAPLAN WG will hold a 2 hour interim virtual meeting October 
>6th, 10h00am Eastern. The main agenda item is the first deliverable 
>of the working group, where an individual draft will be discussed 
>and reviewed to be adopted by the working group.

Marc and Leslie,

Prior to this virtual global meeting, I would like to request an 
IANAPLAN IETF/WG charter update in two directions.

A. This charter states both:

1. "The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF 
consensus document that describes the expected interaction between 
the IETF and the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries." 
This implies (as the context clearly shows it) that a single operator 
is to be considered.

2. The working group will assume that the following documents will 
continue to be in effect: ... RFC 6220 - Defining the Role and 
Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators.

Point 1 considers a single operator, something that point 2 formally 
contradicts in considering and pertinently documenting the need for 
multiple operators. This calls for a clarification, not only due to 
the demanded contradiction, but because I am most probably not alone 
among Libre and States R&D organizations (RDOs) in planning:

a. to draft within the coming months the description of a general 
internet model,
- addressing the second motivation of the IEN 48, 1978 Vint Cerf's 
ARPANET internetworking project (better known as the internet project 
embodied by the IETF)
- that would be compliant with the RFC 6220 text and rationale in 
extending its MDRS (metadata registry system) support of the IEN 48 
first motivation documentation (IANA)
- to every "new networking technology to be introduced into the 
existing catenet while remaining functionally compatible with 
existing systems" in order to "allow[] for the phased introduction of 
new and obsolescence of old networks without requiring a global 
simultaneous change".

b. to develop, test, and deploy MDRS tools in order,
- to permit Virtual Glocal Networks (VGNs) (i.e. conforming to the 
IEN 48 "loose sense" of the local meaning "peculiar to the particular 
network" rather than "a network of limited geographic extent.")
- to operate their own Information Centers (VGNICs) for the 
Administration of their Names and Numbers (the MYCANN project in my case),
- at least - outside of any other consideration - in order to have 
available a failsafe plan for their net in case of ICANN failure, 
unaccountable divergence or incapacity to keep coordinated the RFC 
6852 multi-global community landscape.

B. Since 1977, the US (FCC and then NTIA) as a single point of 
network failure was a reliable enough situation that RFC 6852 is 
dissolving and the NTIA is going to terminate on Sept. 30, 2015.

The mission of the IETF is to make sure that the end to end datagram 
exchanges can continue to perform in a the new context "where the 
economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, 
drive global deployment of standards regardless of their formal 
status" so its "standards support interoperability [and] foster 
global competition", even in the case they "are [only partly] 
voluntarily adopted globally".

I do not think this is possible if the Milestones are not reviewed in 
order to permit a seamless transition by Sept. 30, 2015. To that end, 
the WG/IANAPLAN RFC(s) should be published by May 31, 2015. This 
implies an IETF general final call by April 30, 2015 and WG final 
call by March 31, 2015.

The charter must not appear as an incitement to the status quo while 
criticality is a possibility, and this way to legitimate 
self-organization that is not concerted.

jfc


.