20150424 - JFCM's Response to Seun Odjedji and Andrew Sullivan

Jump to: navigation, search

At 16:07 24/04/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Hi Jefsey,
I understand its a proposal by the names community only and not the ICG proposal

Interesting how there is no mention of the OIO relations. (Other IANA Operators).

At 16:08 24/04/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean other registries for protocol parameters I'd expect that to be out of scope for the names community.

What other IANA operators are there for the names community?

My point is addressed in the questions of my appeal the IESG has not considered necessary to address. What I consider as increasingly disturbing and whish to see approched in the best manner (I try to adopt a median position acceptable to most) in my IAB appeal.

Let say that, independently from the political bargains that commands the transition plan, I wish to keep as stable internet for every of us, however it is likely it will not be the same one (because - cf. RFC 6852 - it will include at least two "global community" coalitions : those who consider they are bound by NTIA and FCC positions/decisions and those who dont).

Each of these coalitions will necessary have a few (hopefully) different visions. This will translate into the need for them to have their own version of the IANA. One should be managed as an ICANN affiliate and the other is still open. IMHO two other ones would make sense: one by ITU and one by the Libre. (I purposely use the term Libre, and "Relationnels Libres" in French to make clear it is not the open source, but an open network approach which corresponds to the Vint Cerf IEN 48 objective second montivation. This ICANN(PTI)/ITU/Libre IANA Operators would represent the states (ITU), business (ICANN) and civil society (Libre) approches and permit some of the multistakeholderism both NTIA and ITU desire. I suppose that the Libre community is young enough for accepting that its desired omnistakeholderism can be delayed, as long as this is the way it will internally proceed.

This scheme, as eventually devised by Vint in July 1978, is the one I engaged into in 1977 with Tymnet and some European PTT and the French government plan (Transpac and Minitel) prevented us to merge with Louis Pouzin's Cyclade. So, my interest is in making sure that - whatever the States (US, Europe, BRICS) may do, negociate, fight, etc. the civil society may keep a stable service eith from PTI and/or from Libre, as I tested it through the Dot-Root community project (along ICANN still valide ICP/3 testing terms) 13 years ago.

The scheme I campaign for - and this is why I stayed with the IETF for all these years, as well as opposing some of the Unicode consortium influence, (while most of the Libre and State oriented people did not) - is one I think acceptable on both sides and possibly also on the third one (if ITU is to enter the game). It could even accomodate more new commers (probably a small galaxy of them if people feel it is not correctly planned). It is the experimentation scheme, along ICANN experimentation rules. Permissionless innovation/projects as long as they keep being experimental first.

In here, and in my appeal, I made clear that I will experiment the DNS CLASS "FL" (for Free/Libre) along with the principles documented by the DNSA. So far, this makes little difference with the IANA PTI Version, but it will help keeping peacefull the varions CLASS "IN" backup solutions and the support of the various "MYCANN" configurations or plug-ins. IMHO, if they do not foresee some fighting, many would be candidate will drop interest.

Obviously the most significant jurisdictionnal disagreements or extensions will probably happen in the naming area. This is why I think the ICANN "name community" is the predominant contributor, also because ICANN is perceived as the name-space commercial hijacker by many States and Civil/Local society members. And eventually because it is the sole interlocutor the NTIA considers in its announcement. The NTIA only considers the DNS. ICANN considers the IANA.

It will also be a way to test ICANN. If it will considers its peers as equals; and if it wants or do not want to respect a multistakeholder approach for itself, or it considers that the TLDs and RIRs are the stakeholders, and it is itself the Queen of Borgs.

All this is in five months now.

At 20:05 24/04/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

You have not, unless I have overlooked something important, actually yet filed an appeal with the IAB. Right? That is, you have stated an intention to appeal, but haven't filed it. (You talk of "my IAB appeal", but I presume that you just elided the "forthcoming" or something like that.)

Right. As I say I wish to see the point correctly presented in this text under preparation. i.e. to make sure that those who whish to help me, help me in a proper direction.

As per RFC 2026 I understand I had to focus on the way the IESG accepted a text that is unclear in spite of my contributions during the WG and according to the Charter; In the appeal to the IAB I understand I am to focus on the way the lack of response of the IESG puts the whole technology at risk of jeopardy. And in a possible apeal to ISOC on the way the appeal system itself, in this specific case, could be insufficient to protect the interest of the community.

Nothing more.
Thank you for your care.