Subject: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:28:07 +0200

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
>>
>>

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:29:41 +0200

Dear Abdussalam,

On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> 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,

—Olaf

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:00:22 +0200

At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> 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.
>>

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 02:19:46 +0100

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Jefsey wrote:

> 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

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:50:47 +0200

Jefsey,

A few comments inline.

On 2 apr. 2014, at 20:00, Jefsey <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun < [email-masked]> wrote:
> 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’s 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’s 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-guiding-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. 

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?

—Olaf

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:07:56 +0200

At 03:19 03/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

>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

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:55:16 +0200

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>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