20141219 - JFC response to Pete Resnick

From IUWG
Jump to: navigation, search
At 1712 17/12/2014, Pete Resnick wrote
On 12/16/14 913 PM, Jefsey wrote
I fully understand that you are defending the interests of your fellow employees.
[Removing the public lists; adding the chairs] Speaking for myself:
The above is offensive. Impugning the motives of others on the list is simply argumentum ad hominem. Please refrain.


On 12/16/14 9:13 PM, Jefsey wrote:

Dear Pete,

Thank you for this reminder. It is essential for the work of a WG that is changing the IETF's very nature.

Speaking for my Libre WGs group.

The above has been been collectively observed as (1) obvious and (2) appropriate to the multistakeholder (cf. NTIA) permissionless innovation paradigm based on global community economic interests documented and supported by RFC 6852.

Were we offensive?

We certainly understand that IETF old-timers may feel that this is as an impugnment of the others' motives that would lead to argument ad personam (an « ad hominem » is the very nature of a debate between personal ideas).

This is not the case. This is acknowledging and obeying the multistakholder model where stakeholders include governments, organizations, corporations, and civil society on an equal footing:

This ID has decided a change in the IETF

We all have to understand what we want, agreed to, and should respect.

The time of general IETF rough consensus is terminated by the I_D we discuss. Alqo is ferminated the RFC 2026 process. This is because it is replaced by the inter-community competition acknowledged by RFC 6852 this I_D is aligning with. The common interest of the internet community is a multi-consensus over the same description of an inter-community compromise. I do believe that this can still be carried at individual level and in being open to everyone.

However, we have to:

  • clearly identify our communities. Andrew is to present a commercial DNS point of view, or he would betray the trust we have, and his business community has, that he will do it. The same, I must clearly tell that I am presenting a Libre IUser point of view, as being the facilitator of the IUCG@IETF and the new moderator of the IUWG.net under creation.
  • based upon possibly diverging community interests and VGN technologies priorities, try to find what we can commonly settle, in order to avoid that our "permissionless innovations" hurt the other communities.

Practical case

Let us phrase it more directly.

  • the USG has overseen the unique authoritative root file and created ICANN to embody it. At the multilateral level (GAC).
  • Google Public DNS, DYN Inc., etc. and Registries and Registrars have built their business on this. At multinational level (ISOC).
  • People (in a people centered information society) want to protect their security and privacy in running their own DNS master system. At the multistakeholder level. These are the MYCANN Plug-ins that I work-on (IUsers multitude).

I want these Libre MYCANN Plug-ins to be free for everyone and to be in definite competition with:

  • the ICANN set-up as an I*core only arrangement no longer led by the IAB.
  • the GOVCANN Plug-ins we will see deployed (e.g. the Chinese one) possibly under national or international laws,
  • the real/virtual Commercial CORPCANN Add-ons or Tricks and Treats Andrew's job is to develop and his sales colleagues are to social engineer our own paying utilization.

A fundamental response to a fundamental question

The question we had was simple: Can the IETF internally support the new paradigm? Meaning managing a mutual respect among "virtual" SDOs striving for different technological visions?

For a long time, I had hoped it could, considering that we could simplify the focus - on lower layers, hardware and infrastructure at the ITU; - on middle, and software transport layers at IETF, even under the « status quo » (or because of the « status quo ») strategy. - on upper brainware and metasoftware layers in an IGF+Libre/Institutional/Commercial openuse context – like at the IGF.

Andrew's mail perfectly, and in measured and IETF realistic terms, as well as your own note, and the I_D debate and current text, consistently show that I was wrong and the IETF consensual response is "no". This means a fork is underway, the same as an ITU/ISOC fork was necessary in the mid-1980s. The split is not only on technical layers grounds, but also on societal grounds. This fork is not something we create, just a fork you, and/or the NTIA, and/or ICANN, and/or ISOC, and/or IAB make happening and we observe and have to do with.

Challenging works ahead ...

From an IUser point of view, this is a new task that will take time, as it did for the IETF in 1986, and the ITU in 1865.

jfc