The 36 questions

The list of the 36 questions of the IESG/IAB appeal are gathered here for common convenience

Question 01

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IETF wants to focus on the practical details of its IANA contract to ICANN rather than on the overall stability of its technology in an ICANN context, meaning it relies on ICANN expertise to best organize and lead the internet multistakeholder governance?

Question 02

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IETF is first committed to the ICANN scenario although it seems to differ with the NTIA announced one?

Question 03

Does this IETF consensus imply that in terms of evaluating the consequence of the NTIA Transition the IAB considers that only functional engineering aspects are impacted and that no architectonic concerns are to be considered that might have architectural consequences are to be investigated and discussed?

Question 04

Would this not call for some consideration when the intent is to transfer 40 years of US sovereign oversight on a NSA-compatible world key technology considered as quasiproprietary (cf. President Obama) to a multiple stakeholder undefined system animated by an objected non-profit, non-member corporation.

Question 05

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IAB does not want to affirm its control of the “.arpa” top-zone and its “iana” domain name as a catenet information center of reference for its internet technology?

Question 06

Does this IETF consensus imply that the ICANN vision supersedes the NTIA announcement or is it a stand-by position while a new “supply/demand” consensus develops over the multiplural catenet governance or an intrinsic permanent consensus of the IETF?

Question 07

In the same way, does it means that the IETF implements the RFC 6852 paradigm as the proper principles for interoperable “permissionless innovations” by other “Global Communities”?

Question 08

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IETF does not consider having a part in any manner to the internet naming space, and fully delegates its management to ICANN?

Question 09

In case of conflict with the IANA operator, will IETF/IAB ask VeriSign for the protection of its “.arpa” zone resolution?

Question 10

Does the IETF consensus imply that there is no need for an IANA protocol to help the documentation community consistently document a situation where permissionless innovation and technical orientations will be the sole market influence on standard adoption?

Question 11

Or does it consider that the documentation sub-communities (in each RFC 6852 global community) should be free to present and adapt the IETF requests for comments in the way they consider as most appropriate for/within their global community (i.e. national, operating system, market, edge provider, Libre, etc. communities)?

Question 12

Does the IETF consensus imply that there is no need for ICANN and the NTIA to consider any possible impact from a larger use of the DNS built-in reentrant CLASS system that enables thousands of roots to safely coexist (as reminded in the ICANN Internet Coordination Policy # 3 [ICP-3])?

Question 13

I must say that I share this opinion, but prefer to follow the ICP-3 precautions in terms of experimentation and prepare a second ICP-3 conformant live testing (further to my previous “dot-root” community test-bed) concerning CLASS “FL” (Free/Libre) to be both supported by a root system and an “HomeRoot” use. Am I over-precautionary in such a permissionless simple application of RFCs?

Question 14

Does the IETF consensus imply that there is no need to consider: ? a possible divergence between RIR and the IETF, for example in a case leading to a change of the IANA operator? ? a non-IETF permissionless innovation introducing another numbering scheme?

Question 15

Does the IETF consensus imply that there is no specific policy development to consider in case ICANN undertakes to support other global community equivalents to the IANA or sponsors development by an emerging documentation community?

Question 16

Does the IETF consensus silence on the points that the (US) Law remains the only arbitrator in terms of community dissensus imply that there is no specific policy development requirement to consider in this area?

Question 17

Does the IETF consensus silence on the IETF Trust copyrights imply a tacit agreement of this consequence?

Question 18

Does the IETF consensus imply that the IAB is no longer considering undertaking its responsibilities in the NTIA organized cross-accountability framework IAB/ICANN through the delegation of the “iana.arpa” sources to the “iana.org” service?

Question 19

Does the IETF consensus silence on the ICANN accountability framework imply a tacit agreement of this consequence?

Question 20

Does the IETF consensus mean that the IETF considers that ICANN is only accountable to the IAB/IETF for the publishing of the protocol parameters?

Question 21

Does the IETF consensus silence on its announced obedience to the NTIA imply a tacit indication that this subjection to the IANA is a one shot case?

Question 22

In the absence of an indication in the appealed Draft of an internal IETF procedure concerning the very decision to change the IANA operator (see below), it seems that it will simply call for an IAB consensus (or vote, since votes are sometimes used at the IETF) that can be appealed to ISOC and disputed in US Courts. Is that correct?

Question 23

Does the IETF consensus silence on this point imply a tacit indication that this would not be a problem for the IETF? This is important for other communities shopping for their own registries operator.

Question 24

Does this IETF response imply that the IETF considers that any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, is valid in case of the misbehavior of the IANA operator?

Question 25

Why has no international legal expert panel been requested to assist the WG review of this text?

Question 26

Does this IETF response imply that the IETF considers that the transition will: ? not modify the global technological context of the digisphere? ? or that the momentum of the current practice will last forever regardless of the permissionless innovations that may happen?

Question 27

Does the IETF consensus imply that it considers that external permissionless innovation will not necessitate its IANA operator’s requirements to adapt?

Question 28

Who is a stakeholder in the IETF parlance? What is the eventual conclusion on the IETF “Paywall” issue?

Question 29

What is the IETF position regarding the omnistakeholder vision, considering how it is difficult to gather abstainers, but that they also make the bulk of the users multitude and eventually also make the changes and revolutions?

Question 30

Does this IETF response imply that the IETF considers that there is no procedural need to protect the exchanges with the IANA systems, and that they are possibly immune from exploits?

Question 31

Does this IETF response imply that the IETF considers that there is no IANA services stress test or an evaluation period under their new governance circumstances?

Question 32

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IETF considers the internet technology to be now mature enough to be immune from multiplural permissionless innovations using the Catenet reentrance?

Question 33

Does this IETF consensus imply that the IETF estimates that it has sufficiently considered the pragmatic credibility of the NTIA scenario and does not expect to have to carry out periodic reviews of the general catenet architecture and of the architectonic practices?

Question 34

Does this IETF consensus as it is worded imply that the IETF does not consider that it would need to set-up a permanent mailing list among the OpenStand signatories and endorsers, extended to Libre, IUsers, Governments and industry community for everyone to be kept abreast of the ongoing permissionless innovation?

Question 35

The consensus does exist, but it is by the IETF "affinity group". I myself, and most probably others, need more clues to understand what to do with it. This is why I have listed the Questions that are needed for RFC.3774-affinity-group non-members to understand what it means. Would there be additional points that should be addressed in such a perspective?

Question 36

This Question is a practical summary of the consequences of the IETF consensual position: is there a problem for the “Relationnels Libres” community to operate an information service at “iana.zone” and further on an adequate TLD of the “FL” (Free/libre) CLASS (see above)?