20141217 - JFC response to Andrew Sullivan

Dear Andrew,

I fully understand that you are defending the interests of your fellow employees. You will accept that I am defending the interests of my fellow IUsers.

Unfortunately, you accepted to be the shepherd of a document making the IETF decision on a point you disagree we should agree.

My remarks are interspersed.

At 1750 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 124519PM +0100, Jefsey wrote

In addition, I already underlined the shepherd write-up is uncomplete, as it does not mention my intent to appeal an IESG approbation of the intended RFC, if it did not include as a clear section of a disclaimer by IESG or/and an IAB, or/and an ISOC

That is not incomplete. Stated intentions that have not actually produced any action are not, in fact, evidence that needs to be considered at all. As a general rule, I do not believe that possible future actions by someone constitute evidence about the state of affairs in the present. The shepherd write-up is supposed to reflect the state of the WG's actual consensus, not the state of any WG's consensus in any possible world.

This seems to be in contradiction with the RFC 4858 letter and spirit.

At 1750 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 124519PM +0100, Jefsey wrote

2. its lack of consideration of the IUWG contribution at: http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.03.pdf

That contribution was considered by the WG, in that some people who are participants in the WG said they read it or tried to. None of the responses on the mailing list suggested it caused any rethinking of the text.

This should be mentioned since it is part of the charter and a Chair's commitment.

Some participants said they didn't understand it. Others said it was irrelevant to the WG's work.

I hope this was not intended to purposely hurt Libre's contributors.

These co-authors of this effort have actually read this: - as despising - not encouraging an internet user cooperation with the IETF, - as a leading business competitor's fear of their permissionless innovation rights and plans. They thank you for the free market study! I am more reserved: I just do not understand you – except if you consider me and the independent users as your competition? I felt there were plenty of room for all on the internet?

After the unfortunate cut-off dates of the WG mishaps, they feel that I did not have to publish our draft as an I_D. Not making it subject to the non-CC BCP-78 proprietary license... We are a small team. I am not going to split from them.

At 1750 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote

The shepherd write-up does not have to mention everything anyone ever said about a document, because if an observation did not produce any appreciable effect on the WG's discussion then it cannot be taken to

be a point of serious consideration by the WG. The IESG knows where the WG archives are; if they want a blow-by-blow review of the WG's discussions, they can read those archives.

OK. Now you are laughing at IESG. Look, I am not interested in the inter/internal ICANN - IAB - IESG - IETF rifts. As an IUser I am interested in a working Internet we can use. With your wording here I am sorry to say that you have by yourself:

• taken the responsibility of the DNS technology and governance fork that I tried to prevent for years. We are just tired of these useless non productive tussles.
• definitely sparked yourself an architectural competition to your multimillion dollar DNS corporation.

Let’s be candid. I am not aware that anyone else formally announced an appeal. So why take the risk of playing it low key?

Or, would it be because the Charter's Milestones will require the RFC-Editor accepts to by-pass the rules and publish a document that will be under appeal? Sorry this is not our IETF. Press and historians know where to read about the RFC Editor practice, under Jon Postel, in such cases.

Or, would it be because the NTIA only spoke of the DNS and that to protect the “unique authoritative root” golden fairy tale that the ICANN and I*core “communities” complicate the transition issue in discussing it as if the IANA was relinquishing the whole IANA oversight? Since RIRs consider addresses as their monopolistic revenue source, and ICANN and many here are unsure about the CLASS “IN” names monopoly, many would like, for a long, to merge the two monopolies before NDN and ION/IoT take off and the MYCANN and GOVCANN plug-ins interfere with the CORPCANN-add-ons.

At 1750 15/12/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote

The write-up is instead intended to provide the IESG with the context necessary to understand WG consensus. I do not believe that the contribution you refer to there had any effect whatsoever on WG consensus.

This is a well stated evaluation of the importance given by an IETF and a business leader pundit to the contribution of FLOSS community members, internet users, and non-I*core stakeholders. This will permit my appeal to raise the additional question of conflict of interests with internet users in the IETF standardization business process, and who are the network stakeholders from an NTIA/ISOC point of view. Two matters which will definitely justify the appeal to be escalated to ISOC.

Andrew, I have tried to make everyone cooperating with me respect the IETF Tao, so far. I am sorry that you decided to cross the limits and illustrate the obsolete and unsecure "one single authoritative root" lobby's bias. This definitely shows me that I was wrong all along in trusting IAB: IUsers cannot trust the IAB anymore. We must look elsewhere for a secure, trusted, and reliable use of the global catenet that we pay for.

That’s too bad. But this is real life.

We need a better, cheaper, people mastered, more flexible, more reliable, and cross accountable internet than the one you want to sell us. And I am afraid we will get it. I hoped we would cooperate: I discover that you want to compete, including within the IETF.

I am dismayed. However, thank you for clarifying my illusions.

jfc