History

From IUWG
Jump to: navigation, search


The creation of this WG was not intended. It came as a side effect of a confusion at the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN.

Due to the calendar that was adopted by the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN, a memo could not be submitted as an IETF Draft to be plainly discussed prior to the end of a WGLC and of a key meeting, as specified by the WG Charter, while it was a pragmatic proposal of compromise by an IUsers Libre community regarding the transition of the DNS key functions.

It was therefore, to be published as an independent public domain contribution, discussed and possibly submitted as an IETF Draft at the end of the cut-off time which prevented its planned initial submission. The Libre IUser group created this site for that purpose.



IETF Transition

The {http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/ announcement] made clear that the IETF ultimate referent is not the IAB anymore but the NTIA:

Quote:

"Our work is not yet complete. There are a number of steps still in front of us. They include the following:
  • Both the numbers and names communities need to complete their proposals. We at the IETF will continue engage with them with their work, just as they assisted us with ours.
  • Later, the IANA Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will assemble a complete proposal and gather community feedback on the result. When ready, they will submit the final proposal to the NTIA.
  • The NTIA must then consider and approve the proposal.
  • Finally it must be implemented.
While there will assuredly be some bumps along the road to success, the IETF leadership are committed to ensuring a good outcome for the Internet.
Jari Arkko, IETF Chair and Eliot Lear, IAB

/Quote.

The Members of the IUWG therefore decided that their WG could not accept "the IETF Note Well" terms, imposing on them the BCP 78 licence.

When the WG/IANAPLAN Draft was approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC, JFC Morfin appealed the IESG: Appeal to the IESG concerning its approval of the "draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response" (PDF file) (JFC Morfin; 2015-03-11).

Consequences for the IUWG

As a result:

  • the IUWG Free/Libre Working Group could only stay independent from the new IETF RFC 6852 type of Global Community; and initiate relations with the Catenet Scic RFC 6852 Global Communities. It is understood that Catenet Scic will endorse the OpenStand principles.
  • Any contribution made within the IUWG framework is considered an "IUWG Contribution". Such contributions include oral statements, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to:
  • The IUWG and Catenet Scic meetings and assemblie
  • Any IUWG or Catenet Scic mailing list, including the IUWG and Catenet Scic lists themselves, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IUWG and/or Catenet Sic auspices
  • Any IUTF and Catenet Scic working group or portion thereof
  • Any Birds of a Feather (BOF) session
All IUWG Contributions are subject to a CC BY SA licence.
Care will be taken that only duely registered members can post on IUWG and Catenet Scic mailing lists in order to protect their IPRs established under more restrictive frameworks.

Evolution

The IUWG evolution will most probably be related to the responses obtained from JFC Morfin's appeal irt. IANAPLAN as they will help clarifying the international legal claims/status/respective status/cooperations/competitions of the various catenet reentrant technologies.


Further to July 8th, 2015, the IANAPLAN/WG has pursued working along the January 8th, 2015 IESG Blog's lines. Eventually, Leslie Daisgle, its co-chair declared consensus on :


"The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the context of the WG’s charter () — specifically, “Should proposals made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.” The IETF IANAPLAN working group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere with the development or safe use of IETF standards. The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well."


The IUWG having no reason to interfere within domestic US politics, JFC MORFIN sent on September 4th, 2015:


"Dear Leslie,
"This position of yours seems reasonable within the new IETF framework. It definitely splits the world's catenet technical and political use between at least the ICANN and XLIBRE (http://xlibre.net) RFC 6852 Global Communities. Two very different sizes and spirits now. It is reasonable to also foresee further governance reorganizations involving Europe, BRICs, and GAFAM virtual global network communities. I, therefore, consider that my hope of seeing an organized/agreed sustainable cooperative settlement reached through the appeal process has come to its expectable conclusion, but I had to give it a try.
"I will, therefore, not appeal the ISOC board of trustees.
"The difficulty now is to keep the catenet use stable and coopetitive enough to avoid technical conflicts as well as to prevent the pollution of the digktynet (the digisphere global network system : http://digkty.net) that some of us identify as the general area of interest for the informed users and Libre researchers.
"We certainly favor a permissionless "intertest" charter for all the Global Communities to jointly agree on live experimentation terms and mutual reporting. We consider that the Section 5 - Experimentation of the ICANN ICP-3 document as a good initial working basis. The work carried out by Brian Carpenter in a past I_D could also be used.
"One of our focuses in the coming months might be R&D concerning DDDS in conjunction with the DNS protocols and how this could lead to an open repository system of reference for the different Global Communities and their network technology coopetition: the home-root and super-IANA “plug-in".
"Best regards,
"jfcm"


This resumes the joint support of the independent use (IUse) of the international catenet interrupted in 1986 in the hope to preserve a global NSA-compatibility due to the TCP/IP missing ISO layer six equivalent. This support spirit is now embodied in the XLIBRE RFC 6852 Global Community.