[iucg] What is the MSism's impact on IETF

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 21:04 26/03/2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>This does not appear to be a topic matching the charter of the 
>Internetgovtech list.  Pleas stop copying the internetgovtech list 
>with this discussion.

Joel,

Sorry, I kept responding with the same distribution as I received. 
However, there is a key issue for the IETF in this, I have to sort 
with ICANN and Govs. I wish to get a guidance from the IAB on its 
position. It is following:

1. let assume that ICANN fails to meey the NTIA expectation or that 
the world actually sticks to the Dubai vote. I feel the IETF context 
would be divided and some constraints on the technology, even in the 
end to end layers, might occur. How to prepare the IETF to such a 
situation? Probably not in pursuing my appeal to ISOC (I delay and 
delay IRT RFC 6852), but how to addres its targret: the lack of 
general appeal process, a matter the EU has now endorsed (I warned 
you of the possibility).

2. MSism as I analyse it, as well as others (ex. Michael Gurstein 
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/) 
does not fully contradict the IETF RFC 3935 which acknowledges the 
need of "leaders" for IETF on occasions, but institutionalizes 
multi-leaders statements (OpenStand, Montevideo, support to the NTIA) 
that by-pass the IETF participants consensus and cannot be appealed 
(as my RFC 6852 appeals shown it).

I include Brian in this threat because he objected to a Technical 
Governance on the discuss list with arguments I partly agree or 
strongly disagree with, and because he is British. So, he is able to 
evaluate in his own way the EU position, with his architectural 
judgment I respect. I must add that as French/European citizen, I do 
not share the US citizens' tendancy to object to their own 
Governement involvement. I understand but object the NTIA's desire 
that governement are not involved in the IG. My rationale is simple:

- objecting to a democratic representation cannot be democratic, so 
there is a conceptual unballance with IETF values.
- we need the assistance of our government if we have to collectively 
sue an US based organization.
- code is law (what is clearly observed in reality). This has a 
corollary: law influences the code. NTIA transfers the US internet 
influence from political to legal areas. I think it is initially a 
good move for the US; but it calls for an update of the 1996 
Telecommunication Act far more important that the 2004 attempt. This 
lies with the Congress. I do not trust the Congress to provide 
quickly a clarification between plug, edge, end and fringe. For 40 
years they only know basic vs. enhanced. When I started discussing 
ONES (Open Edge Network Systems/services) at the WG/OPES, I was not 
followed ny then because it was not in the Charter. Now it is the 
core of my preoccupation as an IUser (informed user) because I want 
to protect the fringe to fringe user side from any legal border creep 
from Edge Providers, Broadband Operators, etc. in US jargon. I want a 
network neutrality which will insure a multi access network 
transparency to multihoming ISP rotation.

My lone-no-money strategy is to use the VGN concept (my PC + shared 
global catenet capabilities under TCP/IP + the extended technologies 
solutions I need) now it has been freed by Snowden. It is/will be 
based on the HomeRoot/SuperIANA experimentations within the 
ICANN-ICP-3 framework. The SuperIANA targets the documentation of the 
VGN Masters when they build their own VGNICs about their end to end 
internet, possible edge additions and their fringe to fringe layer 
six extended services technologies.

Stability should proceed from a strict respect of the IANA inputs 
into the SuperIANA in an IUser oriented terminology, presentation, 
etc. This will be most probably maintained as a peers' wiki. But we 
will need help/cooperation if to be sure we can stay immune from 
Google, Putin, CNNIC, i-DNS, etc. and different technologies: you are 
allied with W3C, more or less with ITU, but what about ONS/GS1, 
Namecoin, CCNX, etc.? In addition there always is the problem of 
Unicode and of the linguistic tables.

The HomeRoot and SuperIANA project will proceed. VGN will be 
documented and increasingly deployed, experimentaly as far as I 
suggest them to proceed. But they will probably politically/FLOSS 
develop beyong my moderation. Our need is for a unified namespace and 
numbering plan that is as much as possioble compatible with the 
Internet practice, so VGNs may deploy seamlessly, as simple "master 
and masters" additions to the client/server current use. This will 
take time as the IUCG experience shows it, but no one knows how fast 
an innovative proposition may develop.

Up to you; stakeholder leaders.

jfc