From nobody Tue Apr 1 12:46:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94201A09F9 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBaycZjHrC_m for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951CB1A09E2 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF2E1E45B4; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAJ0zoMeEpfo; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:1993:71e2:177d:2aae] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:f33:1993:71e2:177d:2aae]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A78191E45AA; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: IETF Chair Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:46:01 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: To: "ietf-announce@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/AQlaHz8bmbBR5XX2KYZiiGSI8OY Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:46:10 -0000 I wanted to provide some updates and pointers on the topic of the = possible changes regarding IANA. After the NTIA announcement, there has = been plenty of discussion at last week's ICANN meeting, for instance. = And it is important the enough people participate discussion also from = an IETF perspective, so please join the discussion on the = internetgovtech list (led by the IAB). Here's my summary: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/iana-changes/ Jari Arkko IETF Chair From nobody Tue Apr 1 16:57:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0291C1A002B for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sXOpeNXuJ0Bc for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x22b.google.com (mail-yk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF351A002A for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q9so8192701ykb.30 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=LoYvZFCx0Iolew6U4/C8kuljZWDXVY5Og1z+Vn3WG3Q=; b=NyDHbBBSvPMp9JfXedFU0+f8z6p/+d+k0xH/h8Jr3tLJrAHvJRJji1qn2ZtX/1Ehr0 2KGgXQSJpbG5F93MKdXZj2ATdupnnIhXYdcPtUmbOBfkWjtScdX9ClGCPBfFY52ysVPw T6MT71zap1OGkzTPKbQvRZNebfys3MT1GvI4pgHZgDQI/vNk5HOk2XJdzvmcmcJ7LP5s Dc3bEqU0eANW6jUHl/57eJa/Dig0LwV/FtVwD4wW3VCDJyryyF394K/COqA3jPCFWrmp cn6Q+fD3qjR4UpGYNISu/FxPGJ1xRDUPwevR3lRjHVREiyONTfW0oR0Q7FjO73tksFNS Y/sA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.206.7 with SMTP id k7mr49836437yho.84.1396396648226; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 01:57:28 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160d0e2ee7dd04f603ee30 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/9Gf1tZflfXpwCn5f-DUY-29wTqE Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:57:34 -0000 --089e01160d0e2ee7dd04f603ee30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It is good to know about this list, thanks. I will assume the summary of this list discussion, is already summaries in the draft of IANA program and the below message. AB On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, IETF Chair wrote: > I wanted to provide some updates and pointers on the topic of the possible > changes regarding IANA. After the NTIA announcement, there has been plenty > of discussion at last week's ICANN meeting, for instance. And it is > important the enough people participate discussion also from an IETF > perspective, so please join the discussion on the internetgovtech list (led > by the IAB). > > Here's my summary: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/iana-changes/ > > Jari Arkko > IETF Chair > > --089e01160d0e2ee7dd04f603ee30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is good to know about this list, thanks. I will assume=A0the summary of = this list discussion, is already summaries in the draft of IANA program and= the below message.=A0

AB

On Tuesday, April = 1, 2014, IETF Chair wrote:
I wanted to provide some updates and pointer= s on the topic of the possible changes regarding IANA. After the NTIA annou= ncement, there has been plenty of discussion at last week's ICANN meeti= ng, for instance. And it is important the enough people participate discuss= ion also from an IETF perspective, so please join the discussion on the int= ernetgovtech list (led by the IAB).

Here's my summary: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/iana-changes/=

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

--089e01160d0e2ee7dd04f603ee30-- From nobody Tue Apr 1 22:28:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDCA1A0121 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:28:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TGZEU5A1uhHY for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x234.google.com (mail-yh0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26461A0116 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c41so10014456yho.25 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:28:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9xfiu+EQjP1ZyL/k5JfMRk/O19fBIFnPSjFoE72p+uE=; b=CXWKLJI7t6MPToMII7JPxVu67vmkoAXPBRKCj9yCNFeWUBIZTkBHWVY0GJQ75uAzm8 sLz4X/WMD6CO3aINF2iyNhNrUZAGRauiMIV8pD3sTApEf6nG6T3T2DwlKM09fT11pqok wIeMtLerXO03hzbhtblN9i58Pp7OwM4/mzlGRPwAlsI8boOAfYtTAsbw1aHhS05IHvfQ NLScXhiSeKKrN8NpjQWLtCv9+TWW9fWv9wgqB7D31cL4zgiwwwi4zWgBYhQBtklEqRFq x2zwvT11nq5MlVM6jg+UwLu2kA3lWr4wN3OP3RUg4Wj25JWEF0RyCsFNfO/zs504Lxl6 hVqw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.160.67 with SMTP id t43mr50406343yhk.11.1396416487068; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:28:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf304353a8ab98e004f6088c36 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/WyezbNtpKxQDmArfBBL9xWHITkU Cc: Olaf Kolkman Subject: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 05:28:15 -0000 --20cf304353a8ab98e004f6088c36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The draft of the IAB IANA program does the describing of IANA which is very important in these days of discussing IANA future. However, I suggest that its introduction show the current situation and the possible future summary change of discussions in IAB. I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to list purpose. Thanks. AB On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > It is good to know about this list, thanks. I will assume the summary of > this list discussion, is already summaries in the draft of IANA program and > the below message. > > AB > > On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, IETF Chair wrote: > >> I wanted to provide some updates and pointers on the topic of the >> possible changes regarding IANA. After the NTIA announcement, there has >> been plenty of discussion at last week's ICANN meeting, for instance. And >> it is important the enough people participate discussion also from an IETF >> perspective, so please join the discussion on the internetgovtech list (led >> by the IAB). >> >> Here's my summary: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/iana-changes/ >> >> Jari Arkko >> IETF Chair >> >> --20cf304353a8ab98e004f6088c36 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
The draft of the IAB IANA p=
rogram does the describing of IANA which is very important in these days of=
 discussing IANA future. However, I suggest that its introduction show the =
current situation and the possible future summary change of discussions in =
IAB. I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to list=
 purpose. Thanks. 

AB

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Abd= ussalam Baryun wrote:
It is good to know about this list, thanks. I will assume=A0the summary of = this list discussion, is already summaries in the draft of IANA program and= the below message.=A0

AB

On Tuesday, April = 1, 2014, IETF Chair wrote:
I wanted to provide some updates and pointer= s on the topic of the possible changes regarding IANA. After the NTIA annou= ncement, there has been plenty of discussion at last week's ICANN meeti= ng, for instance. And it is important the enough people participate discuss= ion also from an IETF perspective, so please join the discussion on the int= ernetgovtech list (led by the IAB).

Here's my summary: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/iana-changes/=

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

--20cf304353a8ab98e004f6088c36-- From nobody Tue Apr 1 23:15:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244C41A013D for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 23:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pn6tfdlQqHuP for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 23:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BED41A013A for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 23:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 9so5569599ykp.10 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:14:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cPRlmYim145UZP2ZrL4r6Wlg4xXnTukppxKcEd/0mrA=; b=p4s8eMZkIZOCFRzRWkVp63mKNMyeNfxJIzsZ6R5MLGxRhSuEdlDlVplioH88Tode56 Q05RJ0rMac44LchDeaOVhlHtEjyZqAzWF/fkLhOFPJfAq7vkHX2pkiB7zrw0ZqFDX6Tr lgjHN9s0/HRA8LQj9nEWOx3tAN6vLBqoW1kCocz1fxJJ0V6hj2lFUWt34JuTfjTcedLz gM2Y/Szi6I9GwJE0ve1V9EuYqHSsx+KdsukWd8f7XJZjG1Uad4JwZms6IqV5tGjVbzdJ eGX5thjzwkaKMol8Ng5k5zD/iMxI167P+Lr3Ykh4qObMl6mryQyheVJ2uV3QOE3hSmV4 eeVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.54.198 with SMTP id i46mr52022041yhc.13.1396419295539; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 23:14:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:14:55 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50b4aae11775604f6093457 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/SEnqzUKvDG3Cx_opNUEV13V-Jb0 Subject: [Internetgovtech] List and discussion progress X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:15:04 -0000 --bcaec50b4aae11775604f6093457 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear participants, I am discussing in this issue of IANA evolution and transition into three lists (ISOC, ICANN, and IAB; ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org, ianatransition@icann.org and internetgovtech@iab.org). However, my aim is not to only respond to the organisations' request to community, but my aim is to make the community request those organisations to behave in the people's direction or the communities decision direction related to the IANA subjects. We need as a group to make our own effort aim and know the result output to be in our words. Any list discussion needs some one to chair or summaries its results of work-group discussion. I don't know our status in discussion together. Furthermore, I suggest we aim to produce a draft/statement that summaries our discussions. It is better that we leaving the organisations to say what we discussed, let us as people/group say what we discussed/decided (then organisations including US government may follow the people and the community). Please suggest. Best Regards, AB --bcaec50b4aae11775604f6093457 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear participants,

I am=A0discussing in this issue o= f IANA evolution and transition into three lists (ISOC, ICANN, and IAB; = ianaxfer@elists.isoc.org, ianatransition@icann.org and=A0inte= rnetgovtech@iab.org). However, my aim is not to only respond to the=A0o= rganisations' request to=A0community, but=A0my aim is to make the commu= nity request those organisations to behave in the people's direction or= the communities decision direction related to the=A0IANA subjects. We need= as=A0a group=A0to make our own effort=A0aim and know the resu= lt output to be in our words.=A0

Any list discussion needs some one to chair or summarie= s its results of work-group discussion. I don't know our status in disc= ussion together. Furthermore, I suggest we aim to produce a draft/statement= that summaries our discussions. It is better that we=A0leaving the=A0organ= isations to say what we discussed, let us as people/group=A0say what we dis= cussed/decided (then organisations including US government may follow the p= eople and the community). Please suggest.=A0

Best=A0Regards,

AB

--bcaec50b4aae11775604f6093457-- From nobody Wed Apr 2 01:30:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4301A016C for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 01:29:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXr6Pe2ggNQz for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 01:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6511A008E for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a04:b900::d0ea:e8e8:e6b7:e1a4] ([IPv6:2a04:b900::d0ea:e8e8:e6b7:e1a4]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s328TgXJ088392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:29:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl) Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl s328TgXJ088392 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1396427386; bh=OgYcYCsqp7grHlhCUyQ4CnaJA2p4vFgy+xNE6fKlMAo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=dvlnZ6JM1mTke9x2P9YkM5DxPbnPiHYyJaAFANgaqzP5wSsny8qDXfCxiF2vGKuBm 8qFx+HidX5STQe9/ET7cwwixTmRpNqBciMnUg7b2UHtg7YXfi/qV/Eskfpq5XI68Fn Mx7cbyMldp7A2T3DcttAEdl41PklczuEDIQYGJCo= Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAB66446-A862-46F0-9640-6AEBC8B4745C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Olaf Kolkman In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:29:41 +0200 Message-Id: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> References: To: Abdussalam Baryun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::53]); Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:29:44 +0200 (CEST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/t7pKnIIwZO7ScNtZ6KNrsnyu1Lg Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 08:29:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_BAB66446-A862-46F0-9640-6AEBC8B4745C Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_110F963B-7699-4138-88AE-7C07AEEC55EF" --Apple-Mail=_110F963B-7699-4138-88AE-7C07AEEC55EF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Dear Abdussalam, On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun = wrote: > The draft of the IAB IANA program does the describing of IANA which is = very important in these days of discussing IANA future. However, I = suggest that its introduction show the current situation and the = possible future summary change of discussions in IAB.=20 Thanks for your suggestion. The draft as it is now is consciously only describing the framework and = the principles for how to apply that framework. It intends to provide a = common language. The Discussion section makes the case that the = framework does apply to the situation today and that the framework = allows for evolution. In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward = thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the document = is more about the latter. > I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to list = purpose. Thanks.=20 >=20 Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles. Kind regards, =97Olaf --Apple-Mail=_110F963B-7699-4138-88AE-7C07AEEC55EF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252


Dear = Abdussalam,

On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam = Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

The draft =
of the IAB IANA program does the describing of IANA which is very =
important in these days of discussing IANA future. However, I suggest =
that its introduction show the current situation and the possible future =
summary change of discussions in IAB. =

Thanks for your = suggestion.

The draft as it is now is = consciously only describing the framework and the principles for how to = apply that framework. It intends to provide a common language. The = Discussion section makes the case that the framework does apply to the = situation today and that the framework allows for = evolution.

In all honesty, with this document = I've have shifted between forward thinking and setting a baseline for = discussion, currently the document is more about the = latter.


I will review the draft and =
comment here, hope that is related to list purpose. Thanks.


Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend = cycles.


Kind = regards,

=97Olaf
= --Apple-Mail=_110F963B-7699-4138-88AE-7C07AEEC55EF-- --Apple-Mail=_BAB66446-A862-46F0-9640-6AEBC8B4745C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Signature creating using GPG Tools. iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTO8p1AAoJEFRqER47aqpkBgwP+wa/TVFj6a8On0n+tJ1qnE2X 1duqNaoBvLKXScMh6dyWyMWtfYjSL6dxvQhzs0iUU2qo9Qs+TbZ6oVjMMoN7mr+r HmHHk2u3EyMdmFNu0eFrYeYT9teU9bWyw5J6/GFs7TsYxN8rTF1GnHyPN5TskpUa bIJ2hqNfamHUxTK2bZbqvz0EZl4spvmcM4WDk9COsAwnrC84yn7r0hD8fVNOgtXi F9FKvwUW4lJt2fE4EliEtpOCe13jLtUh/syibWHbfEHCofUPKt33ePnuPKO0sIgR zl3afSFHzVBcommJB7s6gaxEIr+RM2IWnW72gQzK+DGDbFWEE6T0lmHdd7kesVMc 4VK22MWwX97PQNEHiEKXJAsAnMcmiA9j3nikDqx3/EC0fEz6OotJ+Iuwwcg+Ky2m Z9l6aqRxFtesVSjDPh1HyJrCCgZ0YJLW8OYXwI+CwUqczAjPDQirYdZVqY8alo9N I5kkV7BK+XM/rme+SeKMX9o8MWKVDxEgVG5HyPbE4vgblM+1A2R7iYqKqtXFv8bs oR8BpKROf/x2J9JJ4RqTa1XEfobOP6/2RlvaeVECbky48I21E6FI5Zmz9LUL29gF ZBX1ZYf2UZJZ9SJmzTkn60lZlZ/hYzHcajsRDuQ6lcNxIcvCj1VJcWxnFKWLbak6 ssw3snfCuQ713hB2CNhy =9ilB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_BAB66446-A862-46F0-9640-6AEBC8B4745C-- From nobody Wed Apr 2 11:00:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B3C1A028D for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YL5HDDZ59vGG for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074D11A0326 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 11:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=7311 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WVPSi-0002eF-Pg; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:00:33 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:00:22 +0200 To: Olaf Kolkman , Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_862987390==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/e0UdK7PxqQtbzbW84ET87fsOhdk Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:00:54 -0000 --=====================_862987390==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote: >On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun ><abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote: >In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward >thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the >document is more about the latter. >> >>I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to >>list purpose. Thanks. >Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles. Olaf, one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN. Also, on a (different?) issue, if you consider the Contributors and Acknowledgemetns list, I do not note any citizen from the countries which have signed the WCIT. My understanding is that, the WCIT disagreement being over the internet, the NTIA move is a step toward a compromise acceptable on both sides. Any reach out idea into that direction? I ask myself if that issue is really different because ISOC has national chapters, i.e. IETF has direct colleagues on both "sides". Best jfc --=====================_862987390==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun < abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the document is more about the latter.

I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to
list purpose. Thanks.
Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles.

Olaf,

one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN.

Also, on a (different?) issue, if you consider the Contributors and Acknowledgemetns list, I do not note any citizen from the countries which have signed the WCIT. My understanding is that, the WCIT disagreement being over the internet, the NTIA move is a step toward a compromise acceptable on both sides. Any reach out idea into that direction? I ask myself if that issue is really different because ISOC has national chapters, i.e. IETF has direct colleagues on both "sides".

Best
jfc --=====================_862987390==.ALT-- From nobody Wed Apr 2 18:19:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC8C1A002A for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:19:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGy5L_Bj7_yh for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x235.google.com (mail-yh0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8B51A0048 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:19:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v1so1039130yhn.40 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5dBnxxiRUwe0ye1GTAf152vuFbb7nq8CwFS0tw4iqHs=; b=ZWoeIuyO5lYOOSITEZpNIELbE6yVL5922j14xP88fJJrsy4ExWg7XZVCiKXDYV/qUD jW6zSfUXMVXWevvLvlzDQtWobh/m/kD8IdB7bcB74gVh2FjgghRH0RirAFDX6W0mTGNN LIOFrfvE/+YusjTK3CHhMq1WrZmDeNBtLuaM0iOJ6gpzsSJ75+9mqcgLm+Mj11+uIQG9 WDp6ZogyiULgWWvfCCspNtGsZY59iko/Wr/EVh1JSfMRxTfb9tO7CFLjxPgLefx5R4rj 0gzJg6r7CqOlqGgkfU1JkuRT+SMtlUmpBGhR4Y6m4XTnDR1HO2zM3UJtIU9oet+niI4t nHnw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.8.68 with SMTP id 44mr4928920yhq.39.1396487986555; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533c5050.036e0e0a.52c7.6445SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> <533c5050.036e0e0a.52c7.6445SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 02:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01634e405f4b4904f619327c Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/YEVqjzJ_eRhhlBDSR5pPTfaHAuo Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 01:19:56 -0000 --089e01634e405f4b4904f619327c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > > Olaf, > > one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the > difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and > target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list > called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that > is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC > affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC > consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably > better than ICANN. > I agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving chance to people to participate in internet technology. In the future I think that IANA should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon Postel also wanted more society into that new body of IANA but I still reading history (not easy to find real history these days :-) AB --089e01634e405f4b4904f619327c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote:

Olaf,

one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN.=A0

I = agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving chance to peop= le to participate in internet technology. In the future I think that=A0IANA= should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon Postel also wanted more society i= nto that new body of IANA but I still reading history (not easy to find rea= l history these days :-)
=A0
AB

=A0
--089e01634e405f4b4904f619327c-- From nobody Thu Apr 3 01:51:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3660A1A011C for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfWLkwXtF1kF for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71091A0116 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a04:b900::fd74:befa:1bd0:f014] ([IPv6:2a04:b900::fd74:befa:1bd0:f014]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s338omaL015154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:50:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olaf@NLnetLabs.nl) Authentication-Results: open.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=NLnetLabs.nl DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 open.nlnetlabs.nl s338omaL015154 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1396515052; bh=Wwt435nsV3PC5TK2dQj5dGl05e4NNtaL06B7Y7WZlBQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=WAiUIag9CcHw9wlF1eWpAk8aKIMkHKLzzpKU5NOS70D0wiEJP+hiwX4Uzpiow3lrZ 0ViUqMDq4BPcipVpOY99Bao0TeHfWTLQoAHENiRH9IseXResrOVihocUsZCRCrov2V eD7s3zH1mU+XB+Vq3ixmrHyLXT8S2YOO9NlFW3IE= Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_50B476E6-2292-427D-B506-B0A05BAE57D0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Olaf Kolkman In-Reply-To: <201404021838.s32Ic6Mi058069@open.nlnetlabs.nl> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:50:47 +0200 Message-Id: <14E0C774-0FE8-4E5A-B1AA-AC6701963E67@NLnetLabs.nl> References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> <201404021838.s32Ic6Mi058069@open.nlnetlabs.nl> To: Jefsey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]); Thu, 03 Apr 2014 10:50:51 +0200 (CEST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/KOUz29j0tLSTzWp4dclvoCnaWXA Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 08:51:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_50B476E6-2292-427D-B506-B0A05BAE57D0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E2C67088-9D9D-471D-A110-1F1EDA4F37E2" --Apple-Mail=_E2C67088-9D9D-471D-A110-1F1EDA4F37E2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Jefsey, A few comments inline. On 2 apr. 2014, at 20:00, Jefsey wrote: > At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote: >> On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun < = abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote: >> In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward = thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the document = is more about the latter. >>>=20 >>> I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to >>> list purpose. Thanks. >> Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles. >=20 > Olaf, >=20 > one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the = difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and = target, with so many lists. This is work done within the context of the IAB=92s chartered = responsibility (RFC2850 section 2.(d), Also see = http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/) for the = IETF. Hence an IAB list. I share your concern about the amount of = lists. This document may be the IAB=92s input to another process/list at = some point. Depending on how the process develops. > The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I = think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated = is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. The document does not speak to specific options. Elsewhere = (http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/re-g= uiding-the-evolution-of-the-iana-protocol-parameter-registries/) we = acknowledged: The administration of the protocol parameter registry functions by ICANN is working well for the Internet and the IETF. We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the protocol parameter registries and the coordination of the evaluation of registration requests through the IANA function provided by ICANN. > I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and = legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than = ICANN.=20 So noted. > Also, on a (different?) issue, if you consider the Contributors and = Acknowledgemetns list, I do not note any citizen from the countries = which have signed the WCIT.=20 The Contributors and Acknowledgement section is reflecting who actively = contributed to the document, not a political statement, nor does it = indicated endorsement. I intend to acknowledge anybody with significant = contribution to the content through sending text or informing the = discussion. All acknowledgements are on personal title and affiliation = nor nationality plays a roll. =20 At this moment I do not see any actionable and concrete suggestions with = respect to the content of the document, correct? =97Olaf=20 --Apple-Mail=_E2C67088-9D9D-471D-A110-1F1EDA4F37E2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

Jefsey,

A= few comments inline.


On 2 apr. 2014, = at 20:00, Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> = wrote:

At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
On 2 apr. 2014, at = 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun < abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the document = is more about the latter.

I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to
list purpose. Thanks.
Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles.

Olaf,

one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists.

This = is work done within the context of the IAB=92s chartered responsibility = (RFC2850 section 2.(d), Also see ht= tp://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/) for = the IETF.  Hence an IAB list. I share your concern about the amount = of lists. This document may be the IAB=92s input to another process/list = at some point. Depending on how the process = develops.


The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. = 


The administration of the protocol parameter
registry functions by ICANN is working well for the Internet and the
IETF.  We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the
protocol parameter registries and the coordination of the evaluation of
registration requests through the IANA function provided by =
ICANN.


I do = not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN. =

So = noted.

Also, on a (different?) issue, if you consider the Contributors and Acknowledgemetns list, I do not note any citizen from the countries = which have signed the WCIT. 

The = Contributors and Acknowledgement section is reflecting who actively = contributed to the document, not a political statement, nor does it = indicated endorsement. I intend to acknowledge anybody with significant = contribution to the content through sending text or informing the = discussion. All acknowledgements are on personal title and affiliation = nor nationality plays a roll. =  


At this moment I do not = see any actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content = of the document, = correct?

=97Olaf 
= --Apple-Mail=_E2C67088-9D9D-471D-A110-1F1EDA4F37E2-- --Apple-Mail=_50B476E6-2292-427D-B506-B0A05BAE57D0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Signature creating using GPG Tools. iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTPSDnAAoJEFRqER47aqpkQdQP/ihigoteMPKlgWDW4kBT/Y4J bJJwqBVbytuVSNFwh6nS31Fp/wnH91zi0bCOzMHIL79ksqSn8kKCO7BLntQ1E1LE idwVHWPq8i4ogQmBTyuD8RSiozmtevDt9ADyG8ghY3EixvMlK6g6J7Ou5VVwbwp0 o/fSufD5b1AMtb6K1RsIs2p6Tqi07ZSVh5qD5MBWndM4YB/t96FQs1rpQsz/CQiU 2JAAgSbhNbaFPKM6wVK4C5v5C3tGf1Ezkqp6tG6/oqmnvfJUOKHKZHZ18efQvBhs ZAHSs7GoboCTzYugIWHWw+IkEwFlfpjmKiwE5buIwN+c22ge5ZBnlGQZ55jsqNvt aXxtzu8jdANpIyFMCuzwZrcV+kgbDhyVMn8SvogGP6TlVZjNCsLiKrSobqbQFDXM UyXYdkmRSnQ7cP9baq7DO9ecpueHiVkUXl2T1VLuyzizwTjUJU9Ag3VlnfRYJu4k j5aQrz73V8clqd3s6tJjDQPa3hDkyj4/4xqME7tFvCTaBJEA+D3Y7NXj/GZHByWF KIQ4aeYc1pQJWxOi1YaOzU7JaZlIdsXnCpaxL3AkiXWzvCAfj02q+YuKBOkWQz9F skh67o/c1G2HnILitpJyJxT+fH6BkzOoS0IGWcnrErhOAGMdI3wssbYiSfXwAjzD qoJTg+ewO4PEtwvKNmId =Mkbd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_50B476E6-2292-427D-B506-B0A05BAE57D0-- From nobody Thu Apr 3 07:08:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342851A01C0 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GhyqbZbS3Fo2 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6579E1A01BF for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=49053 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WViJN-0003sm-Ax; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 07:08:10 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:07:56 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> <533c5050.036e0e0a.52c7.6445SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_935441150==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/-dXORS3M9HFYRybzPSDx61JUe5s Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:08:18 -0000 --=====================_935441150==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:19 03/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >Olaf, >one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the >difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action >and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC >has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one >of the options that is investigated is the transfer >back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not >advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and >legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN. > > >I agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving >chance to people to participate in internet technology. In the >future I think that IANA should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon >Postel also wanted more society into that new body of IANA but I >still reading history (not easy to find real history these days :-) Abdussalam, The problem is still more complex. As Suzane Woolf advises you, and all the old timers will tell you: read history, but you note it we did not write it .... and many allude to it in a one sided way that does not help understanding the complications. Let me try to help you from the "reality" side. The NTIA retirement is a cute US move in response to Dubai. The difficult point was internet and sovereign interests. If the US overlooked ICANN other states wanted to share. In removing the NTIA the others' Gov argument becomes void. However, what is going to fill the vacuum? The response is simple: when you remove Executive control, control transfers to the Law and is enforced by Justice. If there is no human law, it is the law of the wild. The pratical process is however not as simple as that: 1. because the dominant law on internet operations is the US law, i.e. not only a national law, but a law at odds with all the other laws for historical reasons. 2. Dr. Lessig's quote "code is law" is to be completed by "law induces code" and the history of the US Datacommunications Law is, and will probably continue to be marked by architectonic variations that can be understood in a domestic context, but not on global markets. It just does scale to globality (and was/is not designed for that). Before proceeding any further toward "actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content of the document" as Olaf is interested in (and already acted decisions), you have also to penetrate yourself of the architectonic, hence architectural, hence technical, hence operational, hence commercial, hence political context in order to determine by yourself what is the real issue, what should be done, if what is engaged at the IETF, States, Industry and IUsers levels has your agreement or not. IETF: the main recent move to master is RFC 6852. It is the core of the change. It predates XCIT, which predates Snowden, which predates Montevideo and the Sao Paulo announce that tended to the NTIA annoucement if the NTIA is professionnal, and I think they are. The US differs from the other countries by the fact that, even if projects have been carried by ARPA, datacoms did not began within (or were not initially contracted by) the monopoly. They stated in the private sector and the law (FCC under the 1934 Telecommunications Act) had to welcome them in parallel to the ATT Bell System monopoly it had created (like ICANN) because of an "unique authoritative root" equivalent argument: "the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service" by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907. http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html (the whole history is interesting). If you want to understand the networks 1974 context (when Vint Cerf and Bob Khan published TCP/IP) you can read the FCC decision in http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2074-689.pdf Interestingly there is a Telenet complaint which shows that the context was already highly political: http://books.google.nl/books?id=khwnFtEzTccC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=FCC+Tymnet&source=bl&ots=Rkanow5Akr&sig=pE5RVylqcL53SQPeBZgh77xqDUM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rks9U7KBMMLuOrq4gdgE&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=FCC%20Tymnet&f=false The FCC Docket 20097 of Jan 1977 http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2077-34.pdf is fundamental. This was one year before Vint Cerf proposed the IEN 48 (July 1978) project: (1) as a proof of concept of Louis Pouzin's catenet through a TCP/IP global network. (2) to be used to provide neutral interconnectivity to any communication technology. The first target is brillantly completed. This second target, which has never been implemented yet (being blocked by the "status-quo"), compared with Tymnet's "Advanced Communications Techology" features: http://books.google.nl/books?id=hzN_18kVYokC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Tymnet+ISIS&source=bl&ots=bzDNJnAow0&sig=imdSA6GDlvGVi11ubCbJgZVVuSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=els9U-eWOMGSO9a6gIAF&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Tymnet%20ISIS&f=false. ACT was deployed throughout the US International Record Carriers and foreign monopolies to build the public international packet switch services (as well as some of the first large corporation or national networks). Tymnet was counter-strategically acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1983 once the internet was launched. It turned out that it was in order to prevent (rather than to develop as we believed) network neutrality, the DARPA procurement contracts favoring Unix/IP. On the PTT side they favored X.75/25. Tymnet ACT equally supported both and much more, favoring none. The NTIA removal is therefore occasion for the Internet informed Users (IUsers) to become free to complete the Internet project and eventually implement multi-technologogy transparency on top of the existing internet technology. This is the meaning of the experimentation we have engaged at the RFC 1958 assigned fringe to fringe stratum, outside of the end to end fully respected layers. The architectonical/architectural reasons are out of this mailing list context. jfc --=====================_935441150==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 03:19 03/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:


On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Olaf,
one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists. The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate. I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN.


I agree, a society is more about the people and ISOC is giving chance to people to participate in internet technology. In the future I think that IANA should be with IAB and ISOC. I think Jon Postel also wanted more society into that new body of IANA but I still reading history (not easy to find real history these days :-)

Abdussalam,
The problem is still more complex. As Suzane Woolf advises you, and all the old timers will tell you: read history, but you note it we did not write it .... and many allude to it in a one sided way that does not help understanding the complications. Let me try to help you from the "reality" side.


The NTIA retirement is a cute US move in response to Dubai. The difficult point was internet and sovereign interests. If the US overlooked ICANN other states wanted to share. In removing the NTIA the others' Gov argument becomes void. However, what is going to fill the vacuum? The response is simple: when you remove Executive control, control transfers to the Law and is enforced by Justice. If there is no human law, it is the law of the wild. The pratical process is however not as simple as that:

1. because the dominant law on internet operations is the US law, i.e. not only a national law, but a law at odds with all the other laws for historical reasons.
2. Dr. Lessig's quote "code is law" is to be completed by "law induces code" and the history of the US Datacommunications Law is, and will probably continue to be marked by architectonic variations that can be understood in a domestic context, but not on global markets. It just does scale to globality (and was/is not designed for that).

Before proceeding any further toward "actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content of the document" as Olaf is interested in (and already acted decisions), you have also to penetrate yourself of the architectonic, hence architectural, hence technical, hence operational, hence commercial, hence political context in order to determine by yourself what is the real issue, what should be done, if what is engaged at the IETF, States, Industry and IUsers levels has your agreement or not.

IETF: the main recent move to master is RFC 6852. It is the core of the change. It predates XCIT, which predates Snowden, which predates Montevideo and the Sao Paulo announce that tended to the NTIA annoucement if the NTIA is professionnal, and I think they are.

The US differs from the other countries by the fact that, even if projects have been carried by ARPA, datacoms did not began within (or were not initially contracted by) the monopoly. They stated in the private sector and the law (FCC under the 1934 Telecommunications Act) had to welcome them in parallel to the ATT Bell System monopoly it had created (like ICANN) because of an "unique authoritative root" equivalent argument: "the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service" by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907. http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html (the whole history is interesting).

If you want to understand the networks 1974 context (when Vint Cerf and Bob Khan published TCP/IP) you can read the FCC decision in http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2074-689.pdf

Interestingly there is a Telenet complaint which shows that the context was already highly political: http://books.google.nl/books?id=khwnFtEzTccC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=FCC+Tymnet&source=bl&ots=Rkanow5Akr&sig=pE5RVylqcL53SQPeBZgh77xqDUM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rks9U7KBMMLuOrq4gdgE&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=FCC%20Tymnet&f=false

The FCC Docket 20097 of Jan 1977 http://etler.com/FCC/pdf/Numbered/20097/FCC%2077-34.pdf is fundamental. This was one year before Vint Cerf proposed the IEN 48 (July 1978) project:
(1) as a proof of concept of Louis Pouzin's catenet through a TCP/IP global network.
(2) to be used to provide neutral interconnectivity to any communication technology.

The first target is brillantly completed. This second target, which has never been implemented yet (being blocked by the "status-quo"), compared with Tymnet's "Advanced Communications Techology" features:   http://books.google.nl/books?id=hzN_18kVYokC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Tymnet+ISIS&source=bl&ots=bzDNJnAow0&sig=imdSA6GDlvGVi11ubCbJgZVVuSY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=els9U-eWOMGSO9a6gIAF&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Tymnet%20ISIS&f=false . ACT was deployed throughout the US International Record Carriers and foreign monopolies to build the public international packet switch services (as well as some of the first large corporation or national networks).

Tymnet was counter-strategically acquired by McDonnell Douglas in 1983 once the internet was launched. It turned out that it was in order to prevent (rather than to develop as we believed) network neutrality, the DARPA procurement contracts favoring Unix/IP. On the PTT side they favored X.75/25. Tymnet ACT equally supported both and much more, favoring none.

The NTIA removal is therefore occasion for the Internet informed Users (IUsers) to become free to complete the Internet project and eventually implement multi-technologogy transparency on top of the existing internet technology. This is the meaning of the experimentation we have engaged at the RFC 1958 assigned fringe to fringe stratum, outside of the end to end fully respected layers. The architectonical/architectural reasons are out of this mailing list context.

jfc

--=====================_935441150==.ALT-- From nobody Thu Apr 3 09:57:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE90B1A027F for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5HF0GnGOM0Y for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FE11A027A for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=51943 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WVkxA-00072B-Fd; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 09:57:24 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:57:10 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/yB42pmBiwAV66ZDnp_ZOYH5Jmvo Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:57:34 -0000 Abdussalam, I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re His actual seven points are important to keep in memory: 1. the transition proposal must have broad community support 2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model. 3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS 4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. 5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free administration. 6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable. 7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3. Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over the Internet. This played out during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet governance. This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet." The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious. The internet is deployed in a real world. jfc From nobody Thu Apr 3 23:08:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730601A02F9 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gsl1Mc_qvFOo for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B021A02AE for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3468M8d007133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396591717; bh=gs6Fc0v0BpA7k7lZQBJDPtahjBZ8uTDdSz78QcHa1MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=Mq1oK1mTFoWgPzoCm3q1+0hzS56Zkx9Ohoc2vzSK6t17E1MlkHzSS1N3VUZBWTsG1 /MJgCjWMtH93fM0atPT1d2gsDMJinigbs05CpTOqD1r1MMCOkzgkGOeVqYXlIVgh57 7El2hhVnVJem/WDcqD+mENGL5cX2WF2HGhsvV9c4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396591717; i=@elandsys.com; bh=gs6Fc0v0BpA7k7lZQBJDPtahjBZ8uTDdSz78QcHa1MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=W51+mBnzk5SxnFeGIvAZ2jv+HCIu50DQ9epwfqk194lGM2sHkUZrFG2jLk8+0osUC XwOtIR/oLXuTfagCNllPNLidhQrHajFdER4+sQcmWZ96kvBGPqrr45ahJHmItuLu8t IHOtgdnbt0+A624PaUioP1YX63pK8bFNJ1CaLI9A= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403203035.0d788240@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:17:29 -0700 To: Olaf Kolkman From: S Moonesamy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/2N4_qildcqL5_-CDLmU0qNOikeE Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] Comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02 X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:08:48 -0000 Hi Olaf, I have a few comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02. The title of the draft is "A Framework for Describing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority". The Abstract states that the "document provides a framework for describing the management of Internet registries managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority". I suggest adjusting the title of the draft to match what the document is about. Section 1.1 discusses about Internet Registries and interoperability. The examples used are about the IETF parameter registries. Section 1.2 then gets into the background of IANA and introduces the three classes (of registries). The draft then gets into a discussion of the framework. The different roles are introduced after that. Although the document captures the idea (I have seen the matrix) it comes out as trying to explaining everything without maintaining the flow. If I was not familiar with the subject I would wonder what the document is about. I suggest considering reorganizing the document by starting with the background, introducing the high level idea and then getting into the details. The audience is likely not the IETF. I suggest not writing from an IETF perspective. I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you are already using plain English. Section 3 lumps accountability and transparency together. They are two different concepts. For example, it could be said that this message is copied to a public mailing list for transparency reasons. It's not like we are accountable towards each other. Transparency is not even mentioned in Section 4.3. One of the definitions of the word "accountability" is the "obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions". Section 4.2 discusses about delegation. It is somewhat like the reverse of centralization as it allows decision-making to occur closer to the problem area. At the moment I am not sure how to explain this. In Section 4.4: "The (wider) IETF has the authority to create new IETF Protocol Parameter registries as described in [RFC6220]." What is the wider IETF? The reader only knows the IETF. I suggest keeping it simple, i.e. it's the IETF. The ICANN bylaws are at http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws In Section 5.2.3: "As specified in ICANN's bylaws [ADDREF], the ICANN Board of Trustees (BoT) oversees those process to perform the Policy Role." ICANN is a corporation. It has a board of directors. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Apr 3 23:58:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D91F1A03A1 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DRYqmRs1NXaP for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B53C1A0396 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:58:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 9so2547991ykp.24 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=A9LTeY8TFPHySsBZ+bUdu4u5kF4RPqqerSP/P1yOAao=; b=puogEuE6wyYYn2BClsz7ww1s65Kzyo4BwM4U3CuZ6tiOnPqJFFT/ZDpiIat1ytRRtY qckYTKqASDUWM2v2BXxlfv7MdWEu6OwxRdJhphK4rDWaCbdIzY5bQ/kNAsiIxKBUj4bb yTYnRNeSuQ1jF4RxzhCHBtfCM8nstkcooCk6EZQG/P8yFPqpMM1JOcctReHAYVBredg1 Ri3/dvKZEETJfxOWIR8AXQBNDlcbjlksLjfWyD4u2XIxfantv8IS+BAGc2KTSwAOucHF ZCpsXrsptgPPrdepWC3e/zaeEoStmEHZ/CUk2RkfsT0tLZ7uBZusAvvl9nqWAzz/oxaO QfyQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.117.98 with SMTP id i62mr14405671yhh.81.1396594678727; Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533d92f7.42cd700a.0c9c.5af8SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <533d92f7.42cd700a.0c9c.5af8SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:57:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/cyrQV5C-eu9fkBYJCtCfGkWv2Pw Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:58:08 -0000 --20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Jefsey, I think the proposal has things missing. It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community? If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president. ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate in the real internet development. The community access and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to understand. I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) to explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions. Thanks for your help. Regards AB On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > Abdussalam, > > I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of > Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago. > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/ > testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring- > security-stability-re > > His actual seven points are important to keep in memory: > 1. the transition proposal must have broad community support > 2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder > model. > 3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and > resiliency of the Internet DNS > 4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the > global customers and partners of the IANA services. > 5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and > maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free > administration. > 6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or > an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable. > 7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the > ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. > > What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the > DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to > be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or > capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain > this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the > global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from > ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3. > > Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept > this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, > into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over > the Internet. This played out during the 2012 World Conference on > International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on > fundamental issues of Internet governance. This issue will likely > resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union > Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again > attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the > Internet." > > The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" > countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/ > who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, > because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the > governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the > architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" > sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end > operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security > considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown > that it could have been judicious. > > The internet is deployed in a real world. > jfc > > --20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jefsey,

I think the proposal has things missing. It w= ill become more important if they mention what community it is talking abou= t. Is it world community? If so then why the proposal does not include the = participation of IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which = I participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until got = input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from I= SOC president.=A0

ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community u= se to participate in the real internet development. The community access an= d proposals are usually through their usual discussion=A0lists not icann or= NTIA.=A0Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is=A0impo= rtant for NTIA to understand.=A0

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in= other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, because = their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)=A0to explain more clo= ser its real=A0points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions.=A0=A0

Thanks for your help.=A0

Regar= ds
AB

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Abdussalam,

I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of Lawrence= Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-a= ssistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stabi= lity-re

His actual seven points are important to keep in memory:
1. the transition proposal must have broad community support
2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder mo= del.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resil= iency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the glob= al customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and m= aintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free admin= istration.
6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an= inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the ICANN-co= nvened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal.

What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the DNS:= "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs t= o be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or cap= ture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maint= ain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the = global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different f= rom ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.

Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept= this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS,= into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control ove= r the Internet. =A0This played out during the 2012 World Conference on Inte= rnational Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental = issues of Internet governance. =A0This issue will likely resurface at the O= ctober 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conferenc= e, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselve= s in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."

The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritari= an" countries htt= ps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signe= d-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, b= ecause the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" = (the governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the = architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "= World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the= end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for the = "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot A= ct: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious.

The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

--20cf3011de27b8a63404f632099b-- From nobody Fri Apr 4 00:19:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FA81A00FD for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:19:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gGc-kibT42lr for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x234.google.com (mail-yh0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67A51A00FC for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c41so2768944yho.11 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3Sp0B4q7vRKTw/hl7UwwW8J4nl1BW0ce22MqD0UO3hg=; b=RaiZ8fmxK9s1lCqWeg84RDBiowvq0vi9VAP/VfrBtDLUCDjN1v36vXU0GF6S3poab0 ad5iwCbbxt7MMI2h9z37b+05vXOw/emj8I3E8G+NN60JqVIcnRNbGFbib9dVvLNrB/mL 2Tzv771KnUM8NKudYolqPFSZRn5xNpD7L/2y5Hw2aoyCSbgNC0nd7jYJgfO3alDgWeY8 FEmg1lccp+LwjC3Lb240LsGb89ibP6bgg37gjbNOvQ2xrj2gAGf9mNrNHTj1r9kMpSCN pOVOuibo9qrLL3ZSjg4TicTL+ybNXZ9HuzezWM9iiEAWUAf8+ApvsMAjRV/RmJ0zsttc m69Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.75.74 with SMTP id y50mr6597750yhd.38.1396595945211; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403203035.0d788240@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403203035.0d788240@elandnews.com> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005137835abfa04f63255dc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/xjLCkpYhIOdDRnv9OJL3d3Mv370 Cc: Olaf Kolkman , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02 X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:19:15 -0000 --20cf3005137835abfa04f63255dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Friday, April 4, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Olaf, > > I have a few comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02. > > The title of the draft is "A Framework for Describing the Internet > Assigned Numbers Authority". The Abstract states that the "document > provides a framework for describing the management of Internet registries > managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority". I suggest adjusting > the title of the draft to match what the document is about. I was thinking to adjust the abstract instead, and make more addition detail framework for all community not only management, this will mean the draft considers multistakehder. > > ..... > The audience is likely not the IETF. I suggest not writing from an IETF > perspective. I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you are already > using plain English. This information should be stated, who are the reader, and what background is needed. I prefer that the draft is written in both perspective, so some sections are more deep and not simple but some others can be simple for general reader. AB --20cf3005137835abfa04f63255dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Friday, April 4, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Olaf,

I have a few comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02.

The title of the draft is "A Framework for Describing the Internet Ass= igned Numbers Authority". =A0The Abstract states that the "docume= nt provides a framework for describing the management of Internet registrie= s managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority". =A0I suggest ad= justing the title of the draft to match what the document is about.

I was thinking to adjust the abstract instead, and make= more addition detail framework for all community not only management, this= will mean the draft considers multistakehder.=A0
=A0

=A0.....
=A0
The audience is likely not the IETF. =A0I suggest not writing from an IETF = perspective. =A0I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you are alr= eady using plain English.

=A0This informati= on should be stated, who are the reader, and what background is needed. I p= refer that the draft is written in both perspective, so some sections are m= ore deep and not simple but some others can be simple for general reader.= =A0

AB
--20cf3005137835abfa04f63255dc-- From nobody Fri Apr 4 08:55:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4F51A01F1 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:55:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.232 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcOfAj1yUBkg for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C2F1A01F3 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=3632 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WW6Sm-0006cQ-F2; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:55:29 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:55:16 +0200 To: Olaf Kolkman From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <14E0C774-0FE8-4E5A-B1AA-AC6701963E67@NLnetLabs.nl> References: <427FB5CE-1782-4652-B51C-1BE059509820@NLnetLabs.nl> <201404021838.s32Ic6Mi058069@open.nlnetlabs.nl> <14E0C774-0FE8-4E5A-B1AA-AC6701963E67@NLnetLabs.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1028281276==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/1K3xiqM2aH5otDnGNC-cEsnSdJU Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:55:38 -0000 --=====================_1028281276==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Olaf, I sent the attached mail on the discuss list. It documents the alternative of IANA outcomes as I see them: - either a solidified IANA/ICANN every internet thing can trust and build upon, - or/and a multitechnology DNSA including the IANA information as an ubiquist content. I have no idea of the final choice, or if both will stay together. My contribution is only to trigger a multitude's open DNSA operational (http://dnsa.org), and see what the multitude will do with it. Addressing Milton's requirements as do the Wikipedians. My positions are definitly attached to the concepts of the ACT (advanced communication technology) I joined Tymnet for in 1978 (see the link I provided yesterday) and the way we made it support every technology, including TCP/IP in1984. This is something that RFC 5895 demonstrated me that TCP/IP could also do. However, what is interesting now are the steps further which are permitted, if you blend this with the progresses made since then and the traffic/use evolution. I will not detail all this but what interests me is an ASAP approach, as I call it: applications as a protocol. Network applications needs to be ubiqist to support active content. This is a whole area to be worked on - at the fringe to fringe layers, that we identified as being outside of the IETF but needing extremely stable and clearly documented IETF layers. When I read your draft I think the IANA is the link. Its purpose is to document the IETF layers' stability and the way they are organized. - This is critical to those who actually are the internet "taskholders", those who have an identified task of common interest for all. They need a rock solid IANA database. - this also is a necessity, among others, for the real "stakeholders", i.e. the intelligent (multitechnology) users who need to have an ubiquist/real time access to the "stuff" of the systems (among them the internet background) they use. These people need that nformation through a IANA protocol consistent with their other technology "meteorological" protocols I will take an example I made quite debated at the IETF. On my mobile I receive a mail in a language and script I ignore. The only way I have to know what they are is in using the langtag database. The only way to know the updated langtag is to dump the entire IANA big langtag database. If I receive a few mails like this, I will DoS the internet and the IANA. I was banned when I asked we discuss a DNS like system to resolve langtags (I will now implement on the DNSA as part of the MDRS - MedatData Multilinguistic Distributed Referential Registry System - or may be others will come with something better?). There are two solutions: 1. either the IETF documents a IANA lookup protocol including axfr that named content networking can use. 2. or I keep dumping the IANA site and track changes without knowing if they correctly reflect the RFCs (in case of conflit what is "correct": the RFC or the IANA?) or the IANA manager intent, as I start doing again with the "IN root". Please note that this is not exactly the same case as for the DNS since the domain name RRs are limited, but this also is for the users a multiclass system one of the classes being the IETF, another being ICANN for Class IN DNs, another being NRO for IP/ASs. Now, what is the basic work to achieve? IMHO only to be precise about the indications being given (a IANA precise framework and taxonomy). JSON with a polynymy (a multilingual taxonomy) would probably be a simple way to proceed. 1. you write "At the time of writing, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains over one thousand protocol parameter registries." There is only the need to add "the list of which is maintained by BCP NNNN from the RFCs IANA consideration section. 2. you write "Internet registries hold identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values used by Internet protocols." These are the internet metadata of which the documented list is provided in BCP NNNN. 3. You write "This description of responsibilities, entities, and functions within the scope of IANA serves as an aid for a structured approach to the potential evolution of the Internet Registries model. ". You just add "and extension as a protocol". Once this is considered there might some extensions to be considered to get multitude's feed-backs and intertechnology consolidations. jfc >Alejandro, > >1. I agree that Milton's approach (not the solution) is the only one >we can currently work on since George said he is to revamp his position. > >2. from your questions, you want to see real actions to be >tested/discussed rather than putative thoughts to be "blah blah blah"ed. > >These two points seem to be enough in order to address the issue in >the way the NTIA wishes it. > >1. there are three possibilities because in real life you do not >change things, you build aside things, so: > >1.0. either the internet is closed and something else is to replace it. >1.1. either the current system is continued; this is George's line >as far as I understand it. >1.2. or a new system is built and tested in parallel. > > - This is where Milton's line should lead us if he was > not actually trying to reform the current system with new ideas. > - This is what I have triggered and reported, based upon > Milton's initial logic. > >2. If you consider only the 1.1. and 1.2. options, there are only >two possible known stable systems: top-down or bottom-up. A hybrid >proposition cannot be expected to build-up easily and auto-maintain >stably. The current system is top-down due to the claimed legitimacy >from building the internet is from the leading world power. The NTIA >removal has only two possible results: > >2.1. either it reinforces the leading power's influence on stability >in bringing the stability of the leading power's law as a referent >instead of its political executive. This is the NTIA MSist >hypothesis. It calls for an adaptation of the US law (by Congress) >before the 9/9/19 date, as assigned by the NTIA (cf. L. Strickling), >if we allow three weeks for a pre-crash emergency agreement. > >2.2. or it switches to the other stable system: bottom-up and proves >that it has fully assumed the transition before 9/9/19. > >This means that it is ICANN vs. DNSA. > >In order to clarify the debate, I suggest that >- the "discuss" and "IANAtransition" keep discussing the >2.1. George/Milton solution (i.e. ICANN plus possible DNSA), >- and "agora" is the list to debate the 2.2. solution at >http://dnsa.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_dnsa.org. >(i.e. DNSA including ICANN as a leading stakeholder). > >Both solutions obviously share the same "MSism" intent that in >European English is called "concertation". > >- In the 2.1. approach, the stakeholders (or partners) are chosen by >the top and have to be clearly defined by the law for the system to >be resilient. The need is to determine the law and to get it >implemented and accepted. > >- in the 2.2. approach, the partners (or stakeholders) are the >multitude, i.e. everyone who "wishes to be" a participant, like at >the IETF and Wikipedia. There is no leadership, but a steering >secretariat can be forked at any time, making it accountable to the >network itself. By the multitude for the multitude: the DNSes' Wikipedia. > >The origin of the whole issue is, therefore, that our known >governance systems do not scale to the globally "catenet"ed human >society. We have to invent one that will be adapted to the new scale >of the computer assisted human gathering and decision processes, >beginning with the governance of that very system. > >- There are those who want to enhance the existing governance to >make it more "democratic". >- There are those who want to carefully (ICANN/ICP-3 gives good >guidelines) test (a) new system(s), so that evidence will show on >9/9/19which is the one to retain (or if they can cooperate). This is >what the NTIA is calling for. > >This does not prevent those who think that the proper global >granularity is neither with the doers nor with the users but with >the rulers to pursue an ITU based proposition. IMHO, but this is >only on my opinion, the three systems apply, each at its own stratum >in the network pile. This is why they do not oppose but complete. We >have 5.5 years to observe, learn, and agree how. > >This being said, I triggered the DNSA for it to belong to everyone >and its own technical target is to be its own "named data system", >so that the leadership issue is fully diluted in our polycratic >networked society. This is algorithmic governance, it should >therefore be algorithmically governed by public protocol. > >jfc --=====================_1028281276==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Olaf,

I sent the attached mail on the discuss list. It documents the alternative of IANA outcomes as I see them:
- either a solidified IANA/ICANN every internet thing can trust and build upon,
- or/and a multitechnology DNSA including the IANA information as an ubiquist content.

I have no idea of the final choice, or if both will stay together. My contribution is only to trigger a multitude's open DNSA operational (http://dnsa.org), and see what the multitude will do with it. Addressing Milton's requirements as do the Wikipedians.

My positions are definitly attached to the concepts of the ACT (advanced communication technology) I joined Tymnet for in 1978 (see the link I provided yesterday) and the way we made it support every technology, including TCP/IP in1984. This is something that RFC 5895 demonstrated me that TCP/IP could also do. However, what is interesting now are the steps further which are permitted, if you blend this with the progresses made since then and the traffic/use evolution.

I will not detail all this but what interests me is an ASAP approach, as I call it: applications as a protocol. Network applications needs to be ubiqist to support active content. This is a whole area to be worked on - at the fringe to fringe layers, that we identified as being outside of the IETF but needing extremely stable and clearly documented IETF layers.

When I read your draft I think the IANA is the link. Its purpose is to document the IETF layers' stability and the way they are organized.

- This is critical to those who actually are the internet "taskholders", those who have an identified task of common interest for all. They need a rock solid IANA database.

- this also is a necessity, among others, for the real "stakeholders", i.e. the intelligent (multitechnology) users who need to have an ubiquist/real time access to the "stuff" of the systems (among them the internet background) they use. These people need that nformation through a IANA protocol consistent with their other technology "meteorological" protocols

I will take an example I made quite debated at the IETF. On my mobile I receive a mail in a language and script I ignore. The only way I have to know what they are is in using the langtag database. The only way to know the updated langtag is to dump the entire IANA big langtag database. If I receive a few mails like this, I will DoS the internet and the IANA. I was banned when I asked we discuss a DNS like system to resolve langtags (I will now implement on the DNSA as part of the MDRS - MedatData Multilinguistic Distributed Referential Registry System - or may be others will come with something better?).

There are two solutions:

1. either the IETF documents a IANA lookup protocol including axfr that named content networking can use.
2. or I keep dumping the IANA site and track changes without knowing if they correctly reflect the RFCs (in case of conflit what is "correct": the RFC or the IANA?) or the IANA manager intent, as I start doing again with the "IN root".

Please note that this is not exactly the same case as for the DNS since the domain name RRs are limited, but this also is for the users a multiclass system one of the classes being the IETF, another being ICANN for Class IN DNs, another being NRO for IP/ASs.

Now, what is the basic work to achieve?

IMHO only to be precise about the indications being given (a IANA precise framework and taxonomy). JSON with a polynymy (a multilingual taxonomy) would probably be a simple way to proceed.

1. you write "At the time of writing, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains over one thousand protocol parameter registries." There is only the need to add "the list of which is maintained by BCP NNNN from the RFCs IANA consideration section.

2. you write "Internet registries hold identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values  used by Internet protocols." These are the internet metadata of which the documented list is provided in BCP NNNN.

3. You write "This description of responsibilities, entities, and functions within the scope of IANA serves as an aid for a structured approach to the potential evolution of the Internet Registries model. ". You just add "and extension as a protocol".

Once this is considered there might some extensions to be considered to get multitude's feed-backs and intertechnology consolidations.

jfc



Alejandro,

1. I agree that Milton's approach (not the solution) is the only one we can currently work on since George  said he is to revamp his position.

2. from your questions, you want to see real actions to be tested/discussed rather than putative thoughts to be “blah blah blah”ed.

These two points seem to be enough in order to address the issue in the way the NTIA wishes it.

1. there are three possibilities because in real life you do not change things, you build aside things, so:
 
1.0. either the internet is closed and something else is to replace it.
1.1. either the current system is continued; this is George's line as far as I understand it.
1.2. or a new system is built and tested in parallel.

           - This is where Milton's line should lead us if he was not actually trying to reform the current system with new ideas.
           - This is what I have triggered and reported, based upon Milton's initial logic.

2. If you consider only the 1.1. and 1.2. options, there are only two possible known stable systems: top-down or bottom-up. A hybrid proposition cannot be expected to build-up easily and auto-maintain stably. The current system is top-down due to the claimed legitimacy from building the internet is from the leading world power. The NTIA removal has only two possible results:

2.1. either it reinforces the leading power’s influence on stability in bringing the stability of the leading power's law as a referent instead of its political executive. This is the NTIA MSist hypothesis. It calls for an adaptation of the US law (by Congress) before the 9/9/19 date, as assigned by the NTIA (cf. L. Strickling), if we allow three weeks for a pre-crash emergency agreement.
 
2.2. or it switches to the other stable system: bottom-up and proves that it has fully assumed the transition before 9/9/19.

This means that it is ICANN vs. DNSA.
 
In order to clarify the debate, I suggest that
-         the “discuss” and “IANAtransition” keep discussing the 2.1. George/Milton solution (i.e. ICANN plus possible DNSA),
-        and “agora” is the list to debate the 2.2. solution at http://dnsa.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_dnsa.org. (i.e. DNSA including ICANN as a leading stakeholder).

Both solutions obviously share the same "MSism" intent that in European English is called "concertation".
 
- In the 2.1. approach, the stakeholders (or partners) are chosen by the top and have to be clearly defined by the law for the system to be resilient. The need is to determine the law and to get it implemented and accepted.

- in the 2.2. approach, the partners (or stakeholders) are the multitude, i.e. everyone who "wishes to be" a participant, like at the IETF and Wikipedia. There is no leadership, but a steering secretariat can be forked at any time, making it accountable to the network itself. By the multitude for the multitude: the DNSes’ Wikipedia.

The origin of the whole issue is, therefore, that our known governance systems do not scale to the globally “catenet”ed human society. We have to invent one that will be adapted to the new scale of the computer assisted human gathering and decision processes, beginning with the governance of that very system.
 
- There are those who want to enhance the existing governance to make it more “democratic”.
- There are those who want to carefully (ICANN/ICP-3 gives good guidelines) test (a) new system(s), so that evidence will show on 9/9/19which is the one to retain (or if they can cooperate). This is what the NTIA is calling for.

This does not prevent those who think that the proper global granularity is neither with the doers nor with the users but with the rulers to pursue an ITU based proposition. IMHO, but this is only on my opinion, the three systems apply, each at its own stratum in the network pile. This is why they do not oppose but complete. We have 5.5 years to observe, learn, and agree how.

This being said, I triggered the DNSA for it to belong to everyone and its own technical target is to be its own “named data system”, so that the leadership issue is fully diluted in our polycratic networked society. This is algorithmic governance, it should therefore be algorithmically governed by public protocol.

jfc
--=====================_1028281276==.ALT-- From nobody Sat Apr 5 19:23:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F041A01FD for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PBYbWusyyRLW for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6401A003A for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 19:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=64720 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WWcjk-00081O-0I; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:23:08 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:22:53 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1152338716==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/n-wO4Al35b5WPC9qaDklNFaGskc Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:23:19 -0000 --=====================_1152338716==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote: >Hi Jefsey, >I think the proposal has things missing. Adussalam, the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it. >It will become more important if they mention what community it is >talking about. Is it world community? The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): - ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. - ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it. I object this understanding for 15 years because: (1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. (2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. (3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN. This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol. >If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of >IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I >participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until >got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received >input from ISOC president. >ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to >participate in the real internet development. The community access >and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not >icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of >IAB is important for NTIA to understand. Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about. >I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other >community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to >explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder >discussions. This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer. >because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to). This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach. Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. Best. jfc >On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >Abdussalam, > >I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of >Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago. >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re > >His actual seven points are important to keep in memory: >1. the transition proposal must have broad community support >2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the >multistakeholder model. >3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, >and resiliency of the Internet DNS >4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of >the global customers and partners of the IANA services. >5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the >Internet and maintain the global interoperability through neutral >and judgment free administration. >6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a >government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution is not >acceptable. >7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the >ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. > >What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding >the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the >DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, >manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA >role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, >thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", >something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3. > >Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not >accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, >including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert >influence and control over the Internet. This played out during the >2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai >where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet >governance. This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 >International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, >where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert >themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet." > >The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are >"authoritarian" countries >https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml >is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental >issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will >necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA >considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the >cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or >stability? This point was not considered for the "Security >considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia >shown that it could have been judicious. > >The internet is deployed in a real world. >jfc > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 >Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org >From: iucg-request@ietf.org >Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 >Message-ID: > >If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >of the body of the reply. --=====================_1152338716==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president.
ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate in the real internet development. The community access and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to understand.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions. 

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Abdussalam,

I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re

His actual seven points are important to keep in memory:
1. the transition proposal must have broad community support
2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free administration.
6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal.

What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.

Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over the Internet.  This played out during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet governance.  This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."

The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious.

The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--=====================_1152338716==.ALT-- From nobody Sun Apr 6 02:04:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF501A0385 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goOnxy-KyFES for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x229.google.com (mail-yk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1833D1A0381 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 142so4550473ykq.28 for ; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=t6a8S4tv5dfjuRDfjxJzJG2ZYk2bXr0QFB4sCQXk0WQ=; b=PokOwNLbkCxu84uXQArivN9LxS4cd4tOaeqIwNrisOh9oa/tw/onpfzuBw17DMCmSv oicYQ5XST81oOMm9kERfQXjjZrsVh3MM7cwV6eSBwZ4wRJY/dvl7S904TGfLCu4UDKHR yglvphHxQZCQDlsPpa0i8yNqhPMaRVi6jIMZsIRhhmBBhtUqLv24zo/0K9qgu361gPvG krhbcmxalN/m5/+Zudiru+TMZa6kA5gLWfd4tFq5VELZx5fBvPDk+lPH3k+crsnAUnO2 Zw27XvbZFBaYD4q86az3rfW1UCo8VCwmQpaDBxBHCOvllRXCE8ovvlWyDA5WbSd0/tfi qM7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.150.205 with SMTP id z53mr34203784yhj.75.1396775056685; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 10:04:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/8jiqktbyr5e5sAEBkS3uxouFT90 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:04:32 -0000 --20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation will change that all. The history of governments in control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard to keep some available opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal. AB On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.orgwrote: > > Hi Jefsey, > I think the proposal has things missing. > > > Adussalam, > the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. > You can padd what you see fit in it. > > It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking > about. Is it world community? > > > The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by > ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): > - ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with > ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. > - ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - > ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express > themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. > As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people > who pay it. > > I object this understanding for 15 years because: > (1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the > registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. > (2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral > contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. > (3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything > contracted with ICANN. > > This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere > with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This > difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The > MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what > is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol. > > If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and > IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never > was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and > from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president. > ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate > in the real internet development. The community access and proposals are > usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such > proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to > understand. > > > Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more > important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at > internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not > endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is > through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to > everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". > This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing > presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not > to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. > > The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe > (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). > Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as > important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum > standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about. > > I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community > lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer > its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions. > > > This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have > over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or > so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by > yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if > during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a > viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by > itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer. > > because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) > > > The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best > interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make > more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support > they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs > to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was > no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. > The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, > banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US > businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of > the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best > adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not > want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them > down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask > other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". > > Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either > than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a > real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton > Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather > than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen > to). > > This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can > participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a > multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach. > > Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. > > Best. > > jfc > > > > On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: > Abdussalam, > > I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of > Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re > > His actual seven points are important to keep in memory: > 1. the transition proposal must have broad community support > 2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder > model. > 3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and > resiliency of the Internet DNS > 4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the > global customers and partners of the IANA services. > 5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and > maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free > administration. > 6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or > an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable. > 7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the > ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. > > What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the > DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to > be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or > capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain > this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the > global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from > ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3. > > Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept > this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, > into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over > the Internet. This played out during the 2012 World Conference on > International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on > fundamental issues of Internet governance. This issue will likely > resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union > Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again > attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the > Internet." > > The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" > countries > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtmlis technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental issues > of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will necessarily > have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we > add a "World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect > the end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for > the "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: > Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious. > > The internet is deployed in a real world. > jfc > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 > Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org > From: iucg-request@ietf.org > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 > Message-ID: > > > > If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, > Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is > spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header > with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting > to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line > of the body of the reply. > > --20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what= is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation wil= l change that all. The history of governments in control of internet=A0is n= o longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard= to keep some available=A0opportunity which I don't blame them. I think= your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have th= e transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your pr= oposal.=A0

AB

On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:<= br>
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president.
ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate in the real internet development. The community access and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to understand.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions.=A0

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is = a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rathe= r than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Abdussalam,

I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-= strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re

His actual seven points are important to keep in memory:
1. the transition proposal must have broad community support
2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, = and resiliency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Inter= net and maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free administration.
6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-= led or an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal.

What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.

Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do n= ot accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over the Internet.=A0 This played out during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet governance.=A0 This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."

The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-= treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious.

The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.= 1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.=A0 Do this if the message is
spam.=A0 If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.=A0 The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--20cf303a2d6115be7a04f65c09b5-- From nobody Sun Apr 6 18:10:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07AB1A063E for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpJna7Onpwek for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B081A063B for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=29847 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WWy4c-0002dP-0W; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:10:07 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:49:58 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1234354088==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/OqhgRkk-m7cbmr7liBr5TY9OY-s Cc: agora@dnsa.org, "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 01:10:17 -0000 --=====================_1234354088==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise >what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new >generation will change that all. The history of governments in >control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its >failures but still trying more hard to keep some available >opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok >but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. >Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal. Abdussalam, This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahblah. Decision is by running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is to concert, develop, experiment and report. IMHO (1) NTIA just got bored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: ""NTIA's role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only with the goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they do not expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something (singular or plural) to emerge that suits people. I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to do is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many architects, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, civil society, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually self-determine (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what we, VGN, hosts, site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for ourselves suits others IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, just to better organize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our plea: to get rid of the NTIACANNA. If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for more. Best jfc >AB > >On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote: >>Hi Jefsey, >>I think the proposal has things missing. > >Adussalam, >the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from >ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it. > >>It will become more important if they mention what community it is >>talking about. Is it world community? > >The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept >used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA): >- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted >with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does. >- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does >- ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express >themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list. >As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the >people who pay it. > >I object this understanding for 15 years because: >(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the >registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants. >(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS >moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions. >(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything >contracted with ICANN. > >This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from >everywhere with their access, and entire individual >self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a >stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not >the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a >database or a registry information protocol. > >>If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of >>IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I >>participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN >>until got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore >>received input from ISOC president. >>ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to >>participate in the real internet development. The community access >>and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not >>icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of >>IAB is important for NTIA to understand. > >Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more >important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) >at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do >not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may >endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs >available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or >protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments >must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good >layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work. > >The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to >fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic >networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum >standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of >the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what >network layers are about. > >>I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other >>community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to >>explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder >>discussions. > >This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They >have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or >one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that >you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be >ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before >9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the >ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the >world a three weeks emergency buffer. > >>because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world) > >The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best >interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they >could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia >plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a >counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not >permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the >independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best >interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, >banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit >the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws >applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress >in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo >preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the >meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to >show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask >the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con". > >Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. >Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work >(this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I >started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism >oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise >(that ICANN does not seem to listen to). > >This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where >every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently >informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, >Wiki approach. > >Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf. > >Best. > >jfc > > > >>On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote: >>Abdussalam, >>I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of >>Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago. >>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re >> >>His actual seven points are important to keep in memory: >>1. the transition proposal must have broad community support >>2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the >>multistakeholder model. >>3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, >>and resiliency of the Internet DNS >>4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of >>the global customers and partners of the IANA services. >>5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the >>Internet and maintain the global interoperability through neutral >>and judgment free administration. >>6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a >>government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution is >>not acceptable. >>7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the >>ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal. >>What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding >>the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the >>DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, >>manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the >>NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment free >>administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of >>the Internet", something rather different from ICANN but conformant >>to ICANN/ICP-3. >>Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not >>accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, >>including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert >>influence and control over the Internet. This played out during >>the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in >>Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet >>governance. This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 >>International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, >>where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert >>themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet." >>The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are >>"authoritarian" countries >>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml >>is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on >>fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects >>everything) will necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In >>the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section >>in the cases where the split might affect the end to end operations >>or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security >>considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: >>Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious. >>The internet is deployed in a real world. >>jfc >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412 >>Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org >>From: iucg-request@ietf.org >>Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700 >>Message-ID: >> >>If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >>Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >>spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >>with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >>to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >>of the body of the reply. --=====================_1234354088==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what is happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation will change that all. The history of governments in control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard to keep some available opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have the transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your proposal.

Abdussalam,
This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahblah. Decision is by running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is to concert, develop, experiment and report.

IMHO (1) NTIA just got bored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: ""NTIA’s role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only with the goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they do not expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something (singular or plural) to emerge that suits people.

I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to do is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many architects, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, civil society, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually self-determine (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what we, VGN, hosts, site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for ourselves suits others IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, just to better organize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our plea: to get rid of the NTIACANNA.

If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for more.

Best
jfc

AB

On Sunday, April 6, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
At 08:58 04/04/2014, iucg-owner@ietf.org wrote:
Hi Jefsey,
I think the proposal has things missing.

Adussalam,
the proposal I mention is the proposal that the NTIA expects from ICANN. You can padd what you see fit in it.

It will become more important if they mention what community it is talking about. Is it world community?

The way I read this is that there is a false "community" concept used by ICANN and Strikling (NTIA):
- ICANN stakeholders are the SOs and entities that have contracted with ICANN or the NTIA, i.e. co-produce what ICANN does.
- ICANN community is made of all those who depend on what ICANN does - ALAC, GAC, WGs being some internal sub-stakeholders. They express themsleves through public comments or the /1net mailing list.
As Paul Towmey explained it in Paris, ICANN is interested in the people who pay it.

I object this understanding for 15 years because:
(1) the first ones who have an indirect contract with ICANN are the registrants and ICANN never accepted an SO of registrants.
(2) every user using a Class IN domain name has also an indirect QoS moral contract with ICANN and should participate to decisions.
(3) you can navigate the net without being dependent on anything contracted with ICANN.

This is why I stick to the "multitude" concept. Everyone from everywhere with their access, and entire individual self-determination capacity. This difference in what is by then a stakeholder makes the whole difference. The MSist granularity is not the same. And as a result the conception of what is the IANA: a database or a registry information protocol.

If so then why the proposal does not include the participation of IAB and IETF. These two entities are very important which I participate in. I never was interested to participate in ICANN until got input from IAB chair and from IETF chair. Furthermore received input from ISOC president.
ISOC, IAB and IETF are the real bodies that community use to participate in the real internet development. The community access and proposals are usually through their usual discussion lists not icann or NTIA. Why such proposals ignore that? However the draft of IAB is important for NTIA to understand.

Once the NTIA is gone, ICANN, ISOC, IAB and IETF should be no more important to IUsers (informed, intelligent, individual, etc. users) at internet layers, than ITU at bandwidth layers, as long as they do not endanger their used net neutrality. The first way they may endanger it is through the copyrights on RFCs. They must keep RFCs available for free to everyone, but they are allowed to forbide or protect "derivative work". This is why new use oriented developments must be at the missing presentation layer six and above, with good layer separation in order not to be dependent from copyrighted derivative work.

The IETF Trust area is the IETF end to end scope. IUse is fringe to fringe (extended services on active content) and above (semiotic networking). Respect and stability of the IETF protocol stratum standards are as important to IUsers, as respect and stability of the ITU bandwidth stratum standards are to the IETF. This is what network layers are about.

I hope people from NTIA participate in this list and in other community lists like ISOC (not only through their web page, to explain more closer its real points and to enhance multistakeholder discussions. 

This is not their cup of tea. They are not interested anymore. They have over babysited ICANN (this was supposed to last a few months or one year or so). They say to ICANN: you are grown up, show us that you can survive by yourself. Otherwise, it means you will never be ready. They want to know if during the three years and half before 9/9/19 they have or not to foster a viable alternative, or if the ICANN/NTIA system can eventually stand by itself (9/9/19 to give the world a three weeks emergency buffer.

because their web is mostly for their citizens not the world)

The NTIA's purpose is the best interest of their citizens. The best interest of their citizens wasto help the world develops so they could make more busines with them. They fully realize that Snowdenia plus the support they have to provide to ICANN gives a counter-productive image that costs to their citizens' business, not permiting them to expand as if there was no suspicion about the independance of ICANN, and doubt about its adequacy. The best interest of their citizens is therefore to severe the links, banalize the situation, restore trust in removing themselves, permit the US businesses to take a full advantage from their US laws applyong to most of the internet business, and to lobby the Congress in order to get them best adapted to their leadership status-quo preservation. However, they do not want ICANN to collapse in the meanwhile and to be accused to have let them down. So, they want to show they have demanded guaranties. They will ask other Govs to ask the same: "ICANN! shows us that you can take the con".

Personally, as my own VGN master, I do not want to take the risk. Either than ICANN fails, or that the NTIA's transition does not work (this is a real change we never tested in 35 years). This is why I started up Milton Muller's DNSA proposition, in a multitude MSism oriented version; rather than his institutional MSism compromise (that ICANN does not seem to listen to).

This http://dnsa.org is an experimentation where every IUser can participate, contribute, control, be transparently informed through a multilingual, multitechnology FLOSS oriented, Wiki approach.

Hence my questions and remarks to Olaf.

Best.

jfc



On Thursday, April 3, 2014, Jefsey wrote:
Abdussalam,
I am sorry, I missed the most important document: the testimony of Lawrence Strickling, for the NTIA two days ago.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/testimony-assistant-secretary-strickling-hearing-ensuring-security-stability-re
His actual seven points are important to keep in memory:
1. the transition proposal must have broad community support
2. the transition proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
3. the transition proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS
4. the transition proposal must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
5. the transition proposal must maintain the openness of the Internet and maintain the global interoperability through neutral and judgment free administration.
6. a proposal that wouls replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution is not acceptable.
7. there are up to four years for stakeholders to work through the ICANN-convened process to develop an acceptable transition proposal.
What he says is important as, in particular what he says regarding the DNS: "the decentralized distributed authority structure of the DNS needs to be preserved so as to avoid single points of failure, manipulation or capture", and further on "Any transition of the NTIA role must maintain this neutral and judgment free administration, thereby maintaining the global interoperability of the Internet", something rather different from ICANN but conformant to ICANN/ICP-3.
Also when he states: "Some authoritarian regimes however do not accept this model and seek to move Internet governance issues, including the DNS, into the United Nations system in order to exert influence and control over the Internet.  This played out during the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai where the world split on fundamental issues of Internet governance.  This issue will likely resurface at the October 2014 International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, where we expect some countries to once again attempt to insert themselves in the middle of decisions impacting the Internet."
The idea that the countries who signed so far the ITR are "authoritarian" countries https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/14133321389/who-signed-itu-wcit-treaty-who-didnt.shtml is technically preoccupying, because the "world split on fundamental issues of [the] internet" (the governance affects everything) will necessarily have an impact on the architecture. In the "IANA considerations" should we add a "World split" sub-section in the cases where the split might affect the end to end operations or stability? This point was not considered for the "Security considerations" after the promulgation of the Patriot Act: Snowdenia shown that it could have been judicious.
The internet is deployed in a real world.
jfc

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: confirm a8e872d52d95f6f8206e45027ec9903860fe5412
Sender: iucg-request@ietf.org
From: iucg-request@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 23:58:09 -0700
Message-ID: <mailman.3036.1396594689.2468.iucg@ietf.org>

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply.
--=====================_1234354088==.ALT-- From nobody Mon Apr 7 02:48:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863841A06DE for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jCh8Qw4qS8ZV for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6BF1A06D7 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b6so5573065yha.16 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:47:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pOV5s0xP2z38Et6n7zFW8uznBkI3qlOR2WEG8fpqXDE=; b=G1REFESANrnm6DNWuuChf70M79jJLPRjl9bu1JykNcO+5sKiyBuQ7yuJEQWc3SQ8Qo 9qkjBMlAzehdvO6MHPjSbukFaHJkDpiGTYteS2eikFKE3qYq17P0XBWeKM+Gkr6elZPO 35lO1IN3N6rD9KTa1IR+2qnaPDy+PU5T5yt1B5uSyru9zrfHLdRRtegl4LTKHadOTXg6 ptpeWgIetd4muVTVVGceT41NlPH6XM9dNmfozf4GHo7WfGIUhWZciaKVM465Jy7hYnnA xWWrlzvuIBZm/X4xr8rCHrMpCs4OUKH53+nPOuykKUhCLt08UrGd/TNCBLMM01RKsu4u Eutw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.79.134 with SMTP id i6mr44221369yhe.16.1396864075776; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5341faf2.871a0f0a.15a0.53b6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5341faf2.871a0f0a.15a0.53b6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:47:55 +0100 Message-ID: From: Abdussalam Baryun To: Jefsey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300510440948c704f670c3cf Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/C-C7RaUn28vb4u3q5uWSkXrSeic Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:48:06 -0000 --20cf300510440948c704f670c3cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 My aim under this list and this important draft, is to make IAB and IETF more involved in the influence of IANA, why only ICANN is involved to role the IANA function. IAB with the framework can do better with the community support. However, I still did not complete my review, but you input helps me thanks. AB On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Jefsey wrote: > At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > > I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and NTIA don't realise what is > happening in the world. The future is to people, the new generation will > change that all. The history of governments in control of internet is no > longer present. The NTIA realised its failures but still trying more hard > to keep some available opportunity which I don't blame them. I think your > proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we need first to have the > transition. Then in future more transitions will happen to get to your > proposal. > > > Abdussalam, > This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahblah. Decision is by > running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is to concert, develop, > experiment and report. > > IMHO (1) NTIA just got bored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: > ""NTIA's role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only > with the goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they > do not expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something > (singular or plural) to emerge that suits people. > > I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to do > is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many > architects, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, > civil society, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually > self-determine (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what > we, VGN, hosts, site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for > ourselves suits others IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, > just to better organize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our > plea: to get rid of the NTIACANNA. > > If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for more. > > --20cf300510440948c704f670c3cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My aim under this list and this important draft, is to make IAB and IE= TF more involved in the influence of IANA, why only ICANN is involved to ro= le the IANA function. IAB with the framework can do better with the communi= ty support. However, I still did not complete my review, but you input help= s me thanks.
 
AB

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Jefsey <jefsey= @jefsey.com> wrote:
At 11:04 06/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I agree, however, the problem is that ICANN and N= TIA don't realise what is happening in the world. The future is to peop= le, the new generation will change that all. The history of governments in = control of internet is no longer present. The NTIA realised its failures bu= t still trying more hard to keep some available opportunity which I don'= ;t blame them. I think your proposal is ok but may not be practical now, we= need first to have the transition. Then in future more transitions will ha= ppen to get to your proposal.

Abdussalam,
This IETF (copy to IUCG). No need for ICANN blahbl= ah. Decision is by running code (IETF) and living mode (IUCG). The aim is t= o concert, develop, experiment and report.

IMHO (1) NTIA just got b= ored with a13 years late ICANN (their FAQ states: ""NTIA’s = role was always meant to be a temporary and transitional role only with the= goal of completing the transition by 2000.". Yes, 2000! (2) they do n= ot expect anything by ICANN or any other one, just for something (singular = or plural) to emerge that suits people.

I am only my own VGN (virtual global network) Master and all I try to d= o is to protect my interests: in spite of the-good will of so many architec= ts, engineers, politicians, industrial and business leaders, banks, civil s= ociety, academics, I am dumb stubborn as I wish to eventually self-determin= e (this is the definition of the multitude fellows). If what we, VGN, hosts= , site, and access masters (i.e. IUsers) try to build for ourselves suits o= thers IUsers all the better. We do not need transition, just to better orga= nize ourselves now we know that the NTIA agreed our plea: to get rid of the= NTIACANNA.

If we organize together, we may have a chance the solution works for mo= re.

--20cf300510440948c704f670c3cf-- From nobody Mon Apr 7 09:51:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895951A0471 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B6zgixL877CN for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250EE1A07BC for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=52434 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WXCkm-0001XE-Em; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:50:36 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:50:32 +0200 To: Abdussalam Baryun From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: References: <5340ba8f.48ae0e0a.769c.ffff8141SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <5341faf2.871a0f0a.15a0.53b6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/K3hGAgnoW3zEWYRHK7-qYHhvccA Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:51:36 -0000 At 11:47 07/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >My aim under this list and this important draft, is to make IAB and >IETF more involved in the influence of IANA, why only ICANN is >involved to role the IANA function. IAB with the framework can do >better with the community support. However, I still did not complete >my review, but you input helps me thanks. Abdussalam, I am experimenting from initial exploration that work on http://dnsa.org issues are of major interest to better understand the way a connected-human semiotic network system works and how it is to be documented. A documentation is made of words from terms naming spaces. Mastering naming spaces in that meaning are of the essence to adequately document namespaces for man/machine systems. jfc From nobody Wed Apr 9 05:20:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99C61A028C for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwLiQi6MFzcB for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0BFB1A027C for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41851E4366; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlek8XESiquY; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.156.44.192] (unknown [192.165.183.201]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D259C1E40EF; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: IETF Chair In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 14:20:32 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> References: To: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ibWh8r0kv4WGZtaDQEf0vMeKCcU Cc: "ietf@ietf.org List" , "ietf-announce@ietf.org" Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes process X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:20:45 -0000 A draft proposal for IANA transition process has been published by = ICANN, based on early input gathered during their meeting two weeks ago. = http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08= apr14-en.htm We would be interested in opinions about this process from an IETF = perspective. Please comment on the internetgovtech list. Jari Arkko, IETF Chair From nobody Wed Apr 9 05:45:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6535F1A0251 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:45:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id meGeoj4JGfzJ for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBC51A027C for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:45:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1165; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397047520; x=1398257120; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=puP7ogV91+rKAs+1WHCwf7w/1T37tOxKzOcz2VWID5E=; b=GzYpsXsaBNvz+s0eRIqjRpJ9V/eRkGt364B7dSSIFtNje7pGoKPtnDOd H0zzIgoMRT6hh7LV7d2UWMDxD0/s77s3yxIgeVru8PhJz+pq3mB0ZWnwq bSZ0zzuCSpegAarFMkDkeFExTbBR9eOYexZfje7b3ipp3DuBDcRV1tR6d A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYKAOk/RVOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABZg0GDYsB8AgKBNnSCJQEBAQQjDwFGEAsYAgIFIQICDwJGBg0BBwEBBQuHaA2pU6IUF4EpjUMHgm+BSQEDiVWPCZJCgzU4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,826,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="10135012" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2014 12:45:18 +0000 Received: from ELEAR-M-C3ZS.CISCO.COM ([10.61.193.138]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s39CjIku008153; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:45:18 GMT Message-ID: <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:45:17 +0400 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko References: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/KZJB0Ql1NEFhshRuSDvn7WZaQ00 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes process X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:45:25 -0000 Hi Jari, While I appreciate your measured tones, you may have understated the situation in this case. Two things are being proposed that require careful consideration. The first is the structure and process of how a proposal to evolve the IANA functions. The second is a statement about what will be evolved and as important what will not change – perhaps for a very long time. Our input is very important into the process, and it will be important that we provide a comprehensive response in the coming weeks. This is the IETF community's chance to provide input into that response. On these two issues, there will not be another opportunity. Eliot In this case, people may not agree on On 4/9/14, 4:20 PM, IETF Chair wrote: > A draft proposal for IANA transition process has been published by ICANN, based on early input gathered during their meeting two weeks ago. > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm > > We would be interested in opinions about this process from an IETF perspective. Please comment on the internetgovtech list. > > Jari Arkko, IETF Chair > > > From nobody Wed Apr 9 05:57:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560D41A028C for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:57:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.819 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAb4LjEnJBch for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973441A012D for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96A8CC080; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:56:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tVJchK4YJEiD; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Miles-Fidelmans-MacBook-Pro.local (static-173-56-67-50.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [173.56.67.50]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 872BBCC07F; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53454396.4040109@meetinghouse.net> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:56:54 -0400 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/bBUD1bbMxn_akor8FjLEQ18sK90 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes process X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:57:03 -0000 It's probably worth mentioning that IANA essentially performs the "registration authority" function that's common to lots of standards processes. And it's typically the standards maker that designates the registration authority (or is the registration authority). As has been discussed elsewhere, using the example of credit cards, ISO sets the numbering standards, and ANSI acts as registration authority for the issuer database (formerly it was the American Bankers Association). For ethernet MAC addresses, IEEE plays both roles. For IANA functions, IETF is the standards body - and the logical body to designate and oversee the registration authority - so.... it's certainly a good idea for the IETF community to weigh in. Miles Fidelman Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Jari, > > While I appreciate your measured tones, you may have understated the > situation in this case. Two things are being proposed that require > careful consideration. The first is the structure and process of how a > proposal to evolve the IANA functions. The second is a statement about > what will be evolved and as important what will not change – perhaps for > a very long time. Our input is very important into the process, and it > will be important that we provide a comprehensive response in the coming > weeks. This is the IETF community's chance to provide input into that > response. On these two issues, there will not be another opportunity. > > Eliot > > > > > In this case, people may not agree on > > On 4/9/14, 4:20 PM, IETF Chair wrote: >> A draft proposal for IANA transition process has been published by ICANN, based on early input gathered during their meeting two weeks ago. >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm >> >> We would be interested in opinions about this process from an IETF perspective. Please comment on the internetgovtech list. >> >> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nobody Wed Apr 9 08:06:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A5B1A0395 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsNaQ86TwJaZ for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B17F1A0390 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E481E41DE; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id okPg9MpBkdOp; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.156.44.192] (unknown [192.165.183.201]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 164F21E40EF; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: IETF Chair In-Reply-To: <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:06:17 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/tXFwjQcdNUq2HBhOyyYVdO2XYh8 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes process X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:06:25 -0000 Eliot, > While I appreciate your measured tones, you may have understated the > situation in this case. Two things are being proposed that require > careful consideration.=20 I am sorry if I was unclear. This is indeed very important, and, yes, as = you point out there are multiple aspects, both the process and the = scope.=20 The process is here: = http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08= apr14-en.htm And the scope here: = http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08ap= r14-en.pdf I expect the IAB and its IANA program to lead the preparation of = response(s), but nevertheless, community discussion of the topic would = be very helpful as well. Jari From nobody Wed Apr 9 15:49:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514DD1A0479 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:49:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K6kvlRMFraKs for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E9E1A03D7 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x10so3031041pdj.9 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:48:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DwWBZ9dqGTo5tbSqlr18rIufc9KcIWmYWEJGMfn6QQg=; b=y3mAE9QyOfp9fk8eQIpSFsoKMGyIHo7o3SygQjOPZkJBBaSSQ2k7X/p6J3pyapzUre 95tkrK4M7+yqL0S+2K4rr41jNkjXljZyezb2jkRzz5THp+M8WnRFBY7hmpwlt9/IxQvu 3W4Buu0YrlkV/TJ3s062HP5og0TH6IEESy0LBQSyK0a5YHUbae1PDv4iXgHmriek4k4P wV+FHbrWr/C4Q46qeuQLkLyMNt/PPT6HD+3lzzL1hywf+296ul7CS26FXWesGjNUlNgS 5WGbAyr1x866fGKawUIvYcXzH4PFQj2CPRHHRwiLsbayRTaGWvwLrZ2egNMiSuSfPEZU w/Ew== X-Received: by 10.66.171.206 with SMTP id aw14mr15552265pac.48.1397083736416; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (79.198.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.198.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pl10sm4817340pbb.56.2014.04.09.15.48.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5345CE5C.9010804@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:49:00 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Chair References: <14E4E6DE-CACF-4057-9308-49BC980A5197@ietf.org> <534540DD.20107@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/sCN5En_ExpByL5BFwpo16D8ed9w Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA changes process X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 22:49:01 -0000 I have intentionally removed ietf@ietf.org. I find the main (html) document boring: it's about forming a steering committee. We've suffered through that discussion over on the 1net list, and I'll be tuning out unless there is an attempt to disenfranchise the IETF, IAB and ISOC. The scope (PDF) document is more interesting. It explicitly excludes a number of irrelevant issues, but more interestingly it explicitly excludes the 'policy' issues that are excluded from the IETF/ICANN MoU too. Also it seems to me rather vague about what happens next to the NTIA contract with Verisign. Maybe NTIA is vague about that too? The scope document is also, to my mind, unclear about the actual issues to be solved by the day the NTIA contract vanishes. According to Dave Conrad, who should know, those issues are: > Currently, when a root zone change is requested by a TLD administrator, > three parties are involved in implementing that change. One of those > parties, NTIA acting as the Change Authorizer, is stepping out. > This requires a change in existing processes (both human and software). > In addition, there is some question whether the Verisign will be > continuing its role as Root Zone Maintainer. Given the history of root > zone management, I believe this would be a fundamental change. (his message to the ianatransition@icann.org list around 2014-03-26.) Brian On 10/04/2014 03:06, IETF Chair wrote: > Eliot, > >> While I appreciate your measured tones, you may have understated the >> situation in this case. Two things are being proposed that require >> careful consideration. > > I am sorry if I was unclear. This is indeed very important, and, yes, as you point out there are multiple aspects, both the process and the scope. > > The process is here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm > And the scope here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf > > I expect the IAB and its IANA program to lead the preparation of response(s), but nevertheless, community discussion of the topic would be very helpful as well. > > Jari > > From nobody Wed Apr 16 16:49:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718FC1A0427 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wyE5eC3IDpR for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28851A0424 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.210]) by atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3GNnO2T010150 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:49:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 31638 invoked by uid 0); 16 Apr 2014 23:49:24 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 16 Apr 2014 23:49:24 -0000 Message-ID: <534F1703.2020602@acm.org> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:49:23 -0400 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140416-1, 04/16/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/VCkSmUPLg9m7hJhpO6_x3hiSvXo Subject: [Internetgovtech] Civil Society invitation to Technical Community for 22nd, from 16hs-17hs at ArenaMundial X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:49:34 -0000 Hi, I hope some of you who come to NetMundial can participate. avri (self declared participant in both civil society and technical community) -------- On behalf of civil society groups organizing the Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting, we would like to invite you to participate in our open session with technical community, to be held on the 22nd, from 16hs-17hs at ArenaMundial. The goal is to learn what are the core issues for technical community considering the outcome document and communicate core CS concerns/positions to explore opportunities for collaboration. This meeting has been organized by: Association for Progressive Communications – APC (Global), Article 19 (Global), Best Bits (Global), Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information – CELE (Argentina), CTS/FGV (Brazil), ONG Derechos Digitales (Chile), Global Partners Digital (UK), Instituto de Defesa do Consumidor – IDEC (Brazil), Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade – ITS (Brazil), Web We Want (Global) Colleagues from civil society at ICANN community are also providing an invaluable help. As such, we have already more then 80 organizations from civil society confirmed. Fadi is also expected to come, willing to confirm soon. Venue: ArenaNetMundial, Espaço Missões, Centro Cultural Sao Paulo, Rua Vergueiro 1000, Sao Paulo. http://www.centrocultural.sp.gov.br/ Looking forward to your RSVP to [joana@varonferraz.com and stefania.milan@eui.eu] From nobody Sun Apr 20 05:49:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB80E1A01C1 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:49:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id njIG-s9fc8gN for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25911A01BC for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377121E12A2; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:48:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o0htXVZXN5yP; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.0.148] (unknown [83.150.71.93]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9230C1DF11E; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 05:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: IETF Chair Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:48:48 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9E6B5379-FD6C-4034-810B-348E95E7E2CF@ietf.org> To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/wHVLfS6wsIzhj4CpjkARH4d2Mf0 Cc: "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: [Internetgovtech] NetMundial X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:49:01 -0000 I wanted to highlight that next week the NetMundial meeting = (http://netmundial.br) will be run in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Pointers to = agendas, draft outcome documents, etc. can be found from my blog: http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/04/netmundial/ Jari Arkko, IETF Chair From nobody Tue Apr 22 11:23:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2F71A06B8 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.632 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_SUMOF=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEJUAe_3xywJ for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795721A06AA for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [184.170.129.121] (port=9617 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WcfLk-0000hk-Db; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:23:21 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:23:13 +0200 To: idna-update@alvestrand.no From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <53558738.4000403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> References: <4DDA07078D8B4BC59CE44C920697FE5B@PeterPC> <53558738.4000403@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_382859400==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/sJirGVTseLIyxbB7ClLR2Hp16VI Cc: fsp4@fsp4.net, "internetgovtech@iab.org" , "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Update to clarify combining characters X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:23:35 -0000 --=====================_382859400==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >At 23:01 21/04/2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >Obviously, what ICANN gTLD registry operators do is governed by >contacts between they and ICANN, and what ccTLD registry operators >is also governed, in part, by desires for consistency, but below (or >outside) of these namespaces with _local_ (not pervasive to all >levels of the tree) restrictions on labels, what resolves is a >local question -- local in the sense of both the FQDN, the RRSet >associated, and the resolvers to which query(s) are made. I tend to think that the whole internet project's success depends on its consistency, i.e. that it developed with many constraints but without contradiction with its http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt seed. This model, however, suffers from an inconsistency that I call the "bug" (for "being unilaterally global") that seems to root in the word "loose" in: its thrid paragraph: "The term 'local' is used in a *loose* sense, here, since it means 'peculiar to the particular network' rather than 'a network of limited geographic extent.'". The term *loose* is something that depends on semantic imagination and that politicians like, but that lawmakers and engineers dislike. However, this term seems to translate something perfectly clear (and, therefore, built-in in the French context of the catenet concept). In the French language, the word "global" has usually gone beyond its "limited geographic extent" meaning. It stands for what IEN 48 wants to be prepared for, and is (I understand) sometimes described in English as "wholity" (as in the whole is larger than the sum of its parts). It is conceptual rather than geographical: local is then what is "peculiar to the [local] particulars", i.e. documented by the "locale" file. This is why I submit that limitations introduced by the English language to Louis Pouzin's catenet concept conceived in the French language context have been further consolidated as constraints by the IETF, in opposition to the IEN 48 catenet model principles. These principles are documented in the two following sentences: - "No explicit network hierarchy is assumed in this model", - "A very important aspect of this model is that no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". The Loc/ID welding, that Louis Pouzin has always objected, is not consistent with: "The host/network interfaces are assumed to be unique to each network. Thus, no assumptions about common network interfaces are made." A community at the "local gateway" interface has been assumed to be so tight as to melt the host and interface together in a topological unicity. In here, we are hit by this same difficulty, which has prevented the second IEN 48 multitechnology (and implied multilinguistics) motivation from being accomplished, and also led to the "status quo" strategy. *Lose locality* was supposed to be supported at the local gateway "host/network interface", i.e. on both "halves" of the host/network gateway/interface (remember no distinction must be made between the two). This means, topologically, this has to happen at the missing OSI presentation layer six and both ways. - This has been patched one way by the "locale" file; - we still missed the "netlocale" equivalent to permit the host to adapt to what is "peculiar to the particular network" and "unique to each network". This is now provided in part by IDNA2008. The remaining unsolved IDNA2008 element is its topological location. The "unusual" (the term it uses, in that it documents an over the end issue) RFC 5895 has exemplified the solution in line with RFC 1122, 1958, and 3439. I accepted it because it permits us to read the internet as an "inter-interface" network, what I call the "interplus", i.e. inter-presentation layer on the user side. You may remember that my opposition to Vint was that he wanted to retain the IDNA2008 layer six functionalities only on the network side - may be in reaction to IDNA2003 which located them in the very applications (as do today's APPS or the W3C). However, one could not venture into my proposed intelligent use inteface (IUI) without the IETF making sure that (1) it was consistent with the whole set of RFCs [there are several WGs on that] and (2) how this would be documented since that IUI could interface the Host (unleashed from/or through the internet) with multiple technologies documented by their own SDO that the IAB would have to liaise with. This second point has resulted in Russ Housley's: 1) agreement and help for the creation of the IUCG@IETF mailing list, to try to make informed users (IUsers) speak and contribute about their host and beyond the host technical needs. i.e. in the "unusual" area of RFC 5895. 2) RFC 6852 which certainly prepares a "global" (French meaning) internet, but the IUCG cannot endorse yet because it does not include an MS convergence process in case of discordance (concepts, protocols, parameters, uses) between what they call "global communities". This is what the NTIA asks ICANN to document. >On 10:10 22/04/2014, Cary Karp said: >I had always assumed that the trailing order of combining marks was >imposed directly by Unicode and that this simply cascaded into IDNA. >Can that constraint actually be overridden in any situation that >would be trapped by a new contextual rule in 5892? (If new rules >are going to be added, there are a few others that might be >suggested. Is that topic now open for discussion?) This is a very important question that also affects the variants. The "inter-IUI"/Interplus catenet model implies that "no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". This cascades to the host/human interface. At the H/H stratum, IDNA2008 appears as a "netlocale", i.e. how the "center of the information society" (the person) is to digitally deal with its different internet supported relational spaces (in our case, through the physical host/human interface: the Unicoded (or not) keyboard and screen. We, therefore, have to be careful at locating constraints (every solution implies constraints) at a place of least nuisance (Harald cited the "principle of least astonishment"). My own rule was: "no gateway trespassing MUST". Therefore, I would aswer: no. You might remember that I was very opposed to whatever could block the support of French majuscules, as also an example of orthotypographic support (which can be a very broad matter). I still wish to experiment their support at the IUI level in a more generalized digital and semiotic environment before determining what belongs to end to end (if any) and to fringe to fringe (what I am, [and others seem to be] now engaging). Much will depend on the work on the ML-DNS (Multi-Ledger DNS) I had said at the begining of IDNA2008. But this is another issue that calls for a series of I_D I might introduce after the Sao Paulo meeting. The considerations regarding the cost to support of a language may then totally change. This is line with my ".fra" project. >At 14:46 22/04/2014, Cary Karp wrote: >A lot of energy is being focused on that in ICANN's VIP program, to >which anyone with immediate interest in that discuss should probably refer. A lot of energy is spent in different fora to attain some consistency in the digital multilinguistics area. I have not noted yet, in those I follow, a real degree of convergence. I am on vip@icann.org where there were 24 mails in 2013: what is the one to be on? Thank you! jfc --=====================_382859400==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 23:01 21/04/2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Obviously, what ICANN gTLD registry operators do is governed by contacts between they and ICANN, and what ccTLD registry operators is also governed, in part, by desires for consistency, but below (or outside) of these namespaces with _local_ (not pervasive to all levels of the tree) restrictions  on labels, what resolves is a local question -- local in the sense of both the FQDN, the RRSet associated, and the resolvers to which query(s) are made.

I tend to think that the whole internet project's success depends on its consistency, i.e. that it developed with many constraints but without contradiction with its http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt seed. This model, however, suffers from an inconsistency that I call the "bug" (for "being unilaterally global") that seems to root in the word "loose" in: its thrid paragraph: "The term 'local' is used in a *loose* sense, here, since it means 'peculiar to the particular network' rather than 'a network of limited geographic extent.'".

The term *loose* is something that depends on semantic imagination and that politicians like, but that lawmakers and engineers dislike. However, this term seems to translate something perfectly clear (and, therefore, built-in in the French context of the catenet concept). In the French language, the word "global" has usually gone beyond its "limited geographic extent" meaning. It stands for what IEN 48 wants to be prepared for, and is (I understand) sometimes described in English as "wholity" (as in the whole is larger than the sum of its parts). It is conceptual rather than geographical: local is then what is “peculiar to the [local] particulars”, i.e. documented by the "locale" file.

This is why I submit that limitations introduced by the English language to Louis Pouzin's catenet concept conceived in the French language context have been further consolidated as constraints by the IETF, in opposition to the IEN 48 catenet model principles.

These principles are documented in the two following sentences:
- "No explicit network hierarchy is assumed in this model",
- "A very important aspect of this model is that no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface".

The Loc/ID welding, that Louis Pouzin has always objected, is not consistent with: "The host/network interfaces are assumed to be unique to each network. Thus, no assumptions about common network interfaces are made." A community at the “local gateway” interface has been assumed to be so tight as to melt the host and interface together in a topological unicity.


In here, we are hit by this same difficulty, which has prevented the second IEN 48 multitechnology (and implied multilinguistics) motivation from being accomplished, and also led to the "status quo" strategy.

*Lose locality* was supposed to be supported at the local gateway "host/network interface", i.e. on both "halves" of the host/network gateway/interface (remember no distinction must be made between the two). This means, topologically, this has to happen at the missing OSI presentation layer six and both ways.
- This has been patched one way by the "locale" file;
- we still missed the "netlocale" equivalent to permit the host to adapt to what is "peculiar to the particular network" and "unique to each network". This is now provided in part by IDNA2008.

The remaining unsolved IDNA2008 element is its topological location.

The "unusual" (the term it uses, in that it documents an over the end issue) RFC 5895 has exemplified the solution in line with RFC 1122, 1958, and 3439. I accepted it because it permits us to read the internet as an "inter-interface" network, what I call the "interplus", i.e. inter-presentation layer on the user side. You may remember that my opposition to Vint was that he wanted to retain the IDNA2008 layer six functionalities only on the network side - may be in reaction to IDNA2003 which located them in the very applications (as do today's APPS or the W3C).


However, one could not venture into my proposed intelligent use inteface (IUI) without the IETF making sure that (1) it was consistent with the whole set of RFCs [there are several WGs on that] and (2) how this would be documented since that IUI could interface the Host (unleashed from/or through the internet) with multiple technologies documented by their own SDO that the IAB would have to liaise with. This second point has resulted in Russ Housley's:

1) agreement and help for the creation of the IUCG@IETF mailing list, to try to make informed users (IUsers) speak and contribute about their host and beyond the host technical needs. i.e. in the "unusual" area of RFC 5895.
2) RFC 6852 which certainly prepares a "global" (French meaning) internet, but the IUCG cannot endorse yet because it does not include an MS convergence process in case of discordance (concepts, protocols, parameters, uses) between what they call "global communities". This is what the NTIA asks ICANN to document.


On 10:10 22/04/2014, Cary Karp said:
I had always assumed that the trailing order of combining marks was imposed directly by Unicode and that this simply cascaded into IDNA. Can that constraint actually be overridden in any situation that would be trapped by a new contextual rule in 5892?  (If new rules are going to be added, there are a few others that might be suggested. Is that topic now open for discussion?)

This is a very important question that also affects the variants. The "inter-IUI"/Interplus catenet model implies that "no a priori distinction is made between a host/network interface and a gateway/network interface". This cascades to the host/human interface. At the H/H stratum, IDNA2008 appears as a "netlocale", i.e. how the "center of the information society" (the person) is to digitally deal with its different internet supported relational spaces (in our case, through the physical host/human interface: the Unicoded (or not) keyboard and screen.

We, therefore, have to be careful at locating constraints (every solution implies constraints) at a place of least nuisance (Harald cited the "principle of least astonishment"). My own rule was: “no gateway trespassing MUST”.

Therefore, I would aswer: no. You might remember that I was very opposed to whatever could block the support of French majuscules, as also an example of orthotypographic support (which can be a very broad matter). I still wish to experiment their support at the IUI level in a more generalized digital and semiotic environment before determining what belongs to end to end (if any) and to fringe to fringe (what I am, [and others seem to be] now engaging).

Much will depend on the work on the ML-DNS (Multi-Ledger DNS) I had said at the begining of IDNA2008. But this is another issue that calls for a series of I_D I might introduce after the Sao Paulo meeting. The considerations regarding the cost to support of a language may then totally change. This is line with my ".fra" project.


At 14:46 22/04/2014, Cary Karp wrote:
A lot of energy is being focused on that in ICANN's VIP program, to which anyone with immediate interest in that discuss should probably refer.

A lot of energy is spent in different fora to attain some consistency in the digital multilinguistics area. I have not noted yet, in those I follow, a real degree of convergence. I am on vip@icann.org where there were 24 mails in 2013: what is the one to be on? Thank you!

jfc
--=====================_382859400==.ALT-- From nobody Fri Apr 25 03:28:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0C11A038D for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bcvip1bKYWP5 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B8D1A0366 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A727B1E1890; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:27:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhISl2prsDgZ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.17.149.25] (unknown [179.189.232.26]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C7541E12A7; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: IETF Chair In-Reply-To: <9E6B5379-FD6C-4034-810B-348E95E7E2CF@ietf.org> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 07:28:44 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9E6B5379-FD6C-4034-810B-348E95E7E2CF@ietf.org> To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/arX0k4T_aqb5VJxJ2XhiPgJ6WWk Cc: "ietf@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] NetMundial X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:28:54 -0000 An outcome document can be found here: = http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholde= r-Document.pdf This is the result of a panel editing a draft, based on discussions = before and during the meeting.=20 I will post more information and some of my own observations about this = topic in the next couple of days. Jari Arkko IETF Chair From nobody Fri Apr 25 11:12:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628EB1A03B3 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:12:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bt0cFiaYNcQw for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664311A03B1 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.149.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3PICXVI015158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1398449565; bh=JSwqUleqi4ko1DV0b/AxRHiTGnZ0+d6Ged+Z4eQfabo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=m3UeuzhcLUqgKkZqFAmKnHgoQky26BLpiHMC9yjcI5icFM0Mx6Wl8j9/4xWcnP7Wt GCCvtUTep0eojcZrwhACo2FhtjlK6nd9SLTxURXXhHrCUbYMi4oM7+qxQtP/PrX1rc JibZwprAib4JXRbiS+1tB+hTOEmjJkbMbdCdaUbk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1398449565; i=@elandsys.com; bh=JSwqUleqi4ko1DV0b/AxRHiTGnZ0+d6Ged+Z4eQfabo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=v1bEDTA3TA1Yg4rRlkbmaycG+JxCfgVrqJUmmcQI31HX5wWmcdd7GICci3F71yfg9 mshqRLt1HHJGqPPdWaqdB2dktCPNtmcVDgl2oWDw6YZS9uuT8Ax2yPSzCzOJOHJbmX xDwG6kvhxojkqhsZJq2z9gQN/sB8vr1RLlDca0h8= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140425103423.0c764d58@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:47:08 -0700 To: Miles Fidelman From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net> References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net> <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Ay6LFcLAoLCSvVJrrLfheOxsKnE Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANAxfr (was: The IETF environment) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:12:54 -0000 Hi Miles, {Cc to appropriate mailing list] At 09:05 25-04-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >Silly question, but perhaps relevant in the context of the IANAxfr >discussions: >So, a lot of what IANA does is covered by an MOU between IETF and IANA. >What happens if IANA doesn't honor it's end of the MOU? I don't >believe it has any recourse measures spelled out. Beyond that, how >would "the IETF" actually notice and respond? (Both informally and formally.) The details of the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry operation are described in RFC 6220. It is simple enough if ICANN cannot do the work; the IAB proposes a fix to the IETF. It shouldn't be an unsurmountable task to implement the fix. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Sat Apr 26 21:37:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CC61A0720 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FtuH_rIq-TE4 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x236.google.com (mail-pd0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45721A0715 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id v10so235087pde.13 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Ba1o451oBRWXEoJYX12SB1GWnMWCg518gYUW13lNfE=; b=OibDxDvtgqIGNbYqgUnGiHZyr1/jeE5nSt4n7fpcWRHzuiD1L5lcEWAIy4uRW3ZKT9 yvZLVWLOJ8cAhVRyHeHoQ5fnfkgjgl01Re6fdioL1RB2GQPB2bojTEus5J1xWjz6d3Y1 x6OmXCO0xjwair1D5piYLdTYDE9p5olk5StGzKF9Lxz8WNz6DtN+wmrvToqb9ekHuflu A7UcLKpKLDx58brj4RHPMO4s/QR22E4K+1WEF/r/fHYAdvTVemH3T3XDrvARujDMPep+ Lk9s13wQ+rhj6icu2uzYnXg6XCx7bIUl95dbj7TkoCcHaoyO2L9ge0KBFEkBSXaTnq/Y xiwQ== X-Received: by 10.68.102.34 with SMTP id fl2mr21221965pbb.2.1398573429820; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.20] (16.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hy3sm26016574pbc.31.2014.04.26.21.37.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <535C8972.8010502@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:37:06 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net> <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140425103423.0c764d58@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140425103423.0c764d58@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/CVcHN9k6yHDSBNm-HEFG9bzY3Zw Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANAxfr X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 04:37:23 -0000 On 26/04/2014 05:47, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Miles, > > {Cc to appropriate mailing list] > > At 09:05 25-04-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> Silly question, but perhaps relevant in the context of the IANAxfr >> discussions: >> So, a lot of what IANA does is covered by an MOU between IETF and IANA. >> What happens if IANA doesn't honor it's end of the MOU? I don't >> believe it has any recourse measures spelled out. Beyond that, how >> would "the IETF" actually notice and respond? (Both informally and >> formally.) > > The details of the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry operation are > described in RFC 6220. It is simple enough if ICANN cannot do the work; > the IAB proposes a fix to the IETF. It shouldn't be an unsurmountable > task to implement the fix. There's additional material at http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html The recourse is built into the MoU: six months notice, which would give ample time to set up an alternative. I very much doubt it will ever come to that, however. Brian From nobody Sun Apr 27 05:42:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40361A0793 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JthX8_pxFUoH for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23531A0795 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s7so4271997lbd.15 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=W6Vy7e9laIAzJdeqQSZ1Fht5oUYwZzDGNNAkR0T1zXQ=; b=QxbFOvFspz6zSH8gmJWuYFweGsdSGHxIuenr6oE/KTmBQ63GykIrBnEZ28Og6+3wAe s/qArlRFOF5aZkUZBiaOAFXYTjGEZwRaziStjckGspvuijcYvqtE1XCcuR7M0dC85ve0 GCYN1oZzYPWIdngDtzgoIv0k1uW1VX17J/XMRo26HWPJDv6iEOJeDPujt+epkVeyc/YC iiO3nNcwIgzezS41WbFgT+Q+srlylS+zd4SjJfd63CjQkKTokRTcZ8C6TmLy/T7NvWkw qmAs3FXPGxJu2yDmOQndE+i8389G4DYKoGctY93+Ddc9jsub/CboswE0sNsyo4/rQHGh fyKQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.29.8 with SMTP id f8mr14561789lah.11.1398602566808; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.234.229 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535C8972.8010502@gmail.com> References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net> <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140425103423.0c764d58@resistor.net> <535C8972.8010502@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:42:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/134M8nJxzWGeJ0UIh48Zi2-Gjo4 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, S Moonesamy , Miles Fidelman Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANAxfr X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:42:50 -0000 On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 26/04/2014 05:47, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Miles, >> >> {Cc to appropriate mailing list] >> >> At 09:05 25-04-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Silly question, but perhaps relevant in the context of the IANAxfr >>> discussions: >>> So, a lot of what IANA does is covered by an MOU between IETF and IANA. >>> What happens if IANA doesn't honor it's end of the MOU? I don't >>> believe it has any recourse measures spelled out. Beyond that, how >>> would "the IETF" actually notice and respond? (Both informally and >>> formally.) >> >> The details of the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry operation are >> described in RFC 6220. It is simple enough if ICANN cannot do the work; >> the IAB proposes a fix to the IETF. It shouldn't be an unsurmountable >> task to implement the fix. > > There's additional material at http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html > > The recourse is built into the MoU: six months notice, which would > give ample time to set up an alternative. I very much doubt it will > ever come to that, however. The recourse is built into the fact that it is only the fact that the IETF choses to recognize the registry as authoritative that gives it relevance. So if the IETF publishes an RFC that defines code points and IANA refused to recognize them for political reasons, the authority would inevitably move elsewhere. Unless of course there was some form of cryptographic authentication involved. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ From nobody Sun Apr 27 10:27:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D4C1A0388 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:27:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6riOHG7oDWlG for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9E01A04F6 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87947CC0AA for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Bm6zN0uHzN5S for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:27:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5D88CC0A8 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <535D3DF9.3030807@meetinghouse.net> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:27:21 -0400 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5356F23F.40909@dougbarton.us> <01P71CGX4VD8000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <5359D543.5070900@dcrocker.net> <01P721HY5XZO000052@mauve.mrochek.com> <535A7D87.6080200@dcrocker.net> <535A87AF.8080000@meetinghouse.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140425103423.0c764d58@resistor.net> <535C8972.8010502@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <535C8972.8010502@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/-tPtyQutIKpn3sL85TMkAJNDw_I Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANAxfr X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:27:28 -0000 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 26/04/2014 05:47, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Miles, >> >> {Cc to appropriate mailing list] >> >> At 09:05 25-04-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Silly question, but perhaps relevant in the context of the IANAxfr >>> discussions: >>> So, a lot of what IANA does is covered by an MOU between IETF and IANA. >>> What happens if IANA doesn't honor it's end of the MOU? I don't >>> believe it has any recourse measures spelled out. Beyond that, how >>> would "the IETF" actually notice and respond? (Both informally and >>> formally.) >> The details of the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry operation are >> described in RFC 6220. It is simple enough if ICANN cannot do the work; >> the IAB proposes a fix to the IETF. It shouldn't be an unsurmountable >> task to implement the fix. > There's additional material at http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html > > The recourse is built into the MoU: six months notice, which would > give ample time to set up an alternative. I very much doubt it will > ever come to that, however. > > Brian Ok... That's pretty clear. Thanks! Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nobody Tue Apr 29 14:49:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080A21A0998; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IeWe1UB0TSDa; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480CE1A0991; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6E11E45BC; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6noV-kbzWSbN; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-241-160-129.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.160.129]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9D381E45BB; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: IAB Chair Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:49:36 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: To: IETF Announce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/sDtlWe2gYHXxTulingPnraIAnsw Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, IAB , IETF , ianatransition@icann.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] =?windows-1252?q?IAB_Sends_Comments_to_ICANN_on?= =?windows-1252?q?_the_Transition_NTIA=92s_Stewardship_of_the_IANA_Functio?= =?windows-1252?q?ns?= X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: internetgovtech@iab.org List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:49:42 -0000 Today, the IAB sent comments regarding the =93Draft Proposal, Based on = Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the = Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA=92s Stewardship of the = IANA Functions=94. The comments are on the IAB web site: = http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408= -20140428a.pdf Thanks for your consideration, Russ Housley IAB Chair= From nobody Wed Apr 30 07:06:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0E51A6FC5 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:06:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1d3X08Rbgno for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38EC1A6FB9 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77636F2C08D for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:05:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuCBkgE28+nM for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-241-160-129.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.160.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD7BF2C087 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:05:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:05:21 -0400 Message-Id: <67A2822A-1F1E-4506-9859-94E8A248ACB1@vigilsec.com> To: internetgovtech@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/x33uxTonV1hjh_OOm1tfw9JG7ms Subject: [Internetgovtech] ISOC DC Chapter event on IANA Transition X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:06:06 -0000 Streaming live in minutes... http://www.isoc-dc.org/isoc-dc-tv/ = http://www.eventbrite.com/e/scenarios-for-the-future-of-internet-governanc= e-tickets-11308282377?aff=3Deorg The Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the = Institute for International Economic Policy at GWU invite you to a panel = discussion about the future of the IANA functions - Scenarios for the Future of Internet Governance The U.S. government=92s recent announcement that it intends to end its = historic role in overseeing the central coordinating functions of the = Internet has created uncertainty about the future of Internet = governance. The outcome of discussions underway today will impact not = only the Internet, but the future of international institutions for many = years to come. Please join us and our distinguished panel for a vital discussion on the = global challenges and opportunities involved in the future of Internet = Governance. Panel 1: What is the IANA Function? What led to the US decision to = reduce its role in IANA? What are the risks and opportunities associated = with this fundamental change? Fiona Alexander - Office of International Affairs, NTIA, US Department = of Commerce Pat Kane - Senior Vice President, Naming and Directory Services, = Verisign Richard Jimmerson - Chief Information Officer, ARIN Steve DelBianco - Executive Director, NetChoice Milton Mueller - Professor at Syracuse University School of Information = Studies Moderator: Tim Lordan - Executive Director at Internet Education = Foundation Panel 2: Possible scenarios for the replacement of the IANA function? = What could this mean for the future of Internet Governance? Christopher Mondini - VP, Stakeholder Engagement North America & Global = Business Engagement, ICANN Raquel Gatto - Chapter Development Manager, the Americas, ISOC Beatrice Covassi - First Counsellor, Digital Economy, EU Delegation to = the United States Derrick Cogburn - Associate Professor of International Relations at the = School of International Service at American University Becky Burr - Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at = NeuStar, Inc. Moderator: Roger Cochetti - Principal at RJC Associates