Subject: [Internetgovtech] Status of selection of IANA NTIA transition representatives by the IESG

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:06:20 +0100

The IESG (minus any ADs who have put their names in as candidates) continues to
consider the appointment of two IETF representatives to the ICANN consultative
process on the transition of IANA from NTIA stewardship and thanks all of the
people who have put their names forward.

Alissa Cooper has been selected as one of the two representatives, and the IESG
is still considering all of the other candidates to select a second person. We
want to stress that our failure to select a second representative does not
reflect badly on the quality of the candidates, but rather results from the care
that the IESG is taking over the decision. 

There is an initial ICANN meeting on this topic in London next week and the IESG
will not have made its selection of the second representative in time for the
meeting. Therefore, the IESG is delegating Alissa Cooper as the representative
of the IETF's interests at that meeting. Jari Arkko will also be in attendance
in his role as the IETF Chair and can, of course, speak to IETF concerns as they
arise.

The IESG plans to resume consideration after the London meeting and make its
selection of the second IETF representative before the July 2nd deadline.

Thanks,
Adrian Farrel for the IESG

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:22:00 +0200

Dear Adrian,

this is an embarassing situation as no one knows who are the 
candidates, their positions, and the criteria of their selection. 
Nor, by the way, what the IESG agenda may be concerning the IETF 
position regarding the ICANN process. IMHO the most appropriate 
solution for a technical body should be to consider the best and the 
worst cases and make sure that the technology can cope with both of 
them, most probably with a delegate being specialized in each extreme case?

Otherwise, along RFC 6852, this is encouraging users and operators 
considering contingency situations where solutions could be asked 
for, proposed and implemented,  "regardless of their formal status". 
This is exactly the situation where I put myself as a Libre 
non-profit ISP having to protect the best symetric (inbound/outbound) 
access to my members.

I do not worry too much due to the actual flexibility of the 
technology but I am definitly sure that the solutions I will 
implement in case of difficulty will not be those advocated by the 
ICANNTIA project, as they would be the source of that difficulty. 
Since many of other operators and users will proceed the same in 
their own unknown way, some by local regulations or national law, 
without prior MSist coordination, the result may turn out to be 
technically operational but politically confuse, and difficult or 
even impossible to globally concert again. This would then be the end 
of the IETF as a global body or even worse if the situation degenerated.

This kind of situation is scientifically known as "SOC", 
self-organizing criticality. This is the way nature and history 
usually work, by way of catastrophes. I think this is a point worth 
considering, more over than most of the people who will actually take 
these decisions are not (like me, but this is its own decision) on 
the IETF list.

jfc

PS. for your information most of the positions I will take in an a 
difficult situation will be documented in the French language for my 
French fellow users. I suppose that other ISPs will proceed in the 
same manner. Not to consider an ICANNTIA failure and train us in 
advance may lead to contradict RFC 3935 which states that "The IETF 
uses the English language for its work is because of its utility for 
working in a global context."

At 20:06 21/06/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>Internetgovtech mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:17:31 -0400

--On Sunday, June 22, 2014 20:22 +0200 Jefsey
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> candidates, their positions, and the criteria of their
> selection. Nor, by the way, what the IESG agenda may be
> concerning the IETF position regarding the ICANN process. IMHO
> the most appropriate solution for a technical body should be
> to consider the best and the worst cases and make sure that
> the technology can cope with both of them, most probably with
> a delegate being specialized in each extreme case?

Jefsey,

I find many things with which I disagree and about which to be
concerned in the various pieces of this process.  But I don't
think Adrian's note identifies a situation about which the IESG
or IETF should be embarrassed in any way.  I believe that the
overall schedule would be very difficult even if ICANN had
presented a starting-point plan to the community for tuning and
ratification, but they didn't and, as far as I can tell, no one
wants that.  That leaves the community with an even more
difficult schedule and, while I can understand some impatience
with delays, I think there are ultimately only two possibilities:

(1) This whole initiative isn't going anywhere and, if there is
eventually an IANA transition away from the current NTIA
oversight model, it will not result from this process and, in
particular, from the Coordination Group's efforts.  If that is
the case, it doesn't make any difference what the IESG does and
no one should be concerned about whether or not they do it
(except, possibly, about the time they spend discussing it that
could be spent in other ways).

(2) The initiative is important.  In that case, I would much
rather have the IESG think carefully about what they want, who
they want to do it, and any details they want to work out about
relationships, discussing that with each other and, if needed,
with possible candidates, rather than do anything hasty in order
to get a second person appointed quickly ... especially since I
note that several other constituencies haven't announced
selections either.  And I think we should be pleased, and not
embarrassed at all, that they are taking that level of care.

> Otherwise, along RFC 6852, this is encouraging users and
> operators considering contingency situations where solutions
> could be asked for, proposed and implemented,  "regardless of
> their formal status". 

I don't see any way in which that would follow, even if I were
more confident I understood what you were talking about.

> This is exactly the situation where I
> put myself as a Libre non-profit ISP having to protect the
> best symetric (inbound/outbound) access to my members.

It is not clear to me why you think --as I assume from the above
that you do-- protecting "best symmetric ... access to your
members" has anything to do with IANA, how it is overseen, or
any other aspect of this process.    Even if it did, it would
not be clear to me why you should be seeking representation in
the process via the IESG or otherwise feeling that you have
standing to complain about what the IESG is or is not doing.

> implement in case of difficulty will not be those advocated by
> the ICANNTIA project, as they would be the source of that
> difficulty. Since many of other operators and users will
> proceed the same in their own unknown way, some by local
> regulations or national law, without prior MSist coordination,
> the result may turn out to be technically operational but
> politically confuse, and difficult or even impossible to
> globally concert again. This would then be the end of the IETF
> as a global body or even worse if the situation degenerated.
>...

And now I'm sure I don't understand what you are talking about.
Nothing in the NTIA-ICANN-IANA relationship has ever had an
influence on IETF protocol decisions (other than as comments
from the community).  If something causes difficulties in the
design or implementation of what you decide to do, it will
either be administrative or policy decisions involving your
providers or French, EU, or possibly RIPE, but not NTIA or IANA
in any direct way.  IETF protocol decisions may make it easier
or harder to do whatever you intend to do (and, in particular,
may influence what you can easily obtain as Common,
Off-the-Shelf, hardware or software, but NTIA and IANA don't
have much influence over those decisions either... and it has
hard to blame the IETF for not facilitating whatever
non-conforming things you want to do.

And, again, I don't see how you classify or name some aspect of
what is going on changes anything.  You may have disagreements
with decisions the IETF makes and/or the patterns of IETF
protocol work.  You may want to go off in other directions and
may even consider some of those directions to be more true to
the spirit of the Internet model than what you see the IETF
doing.  Whether you would be, by some measure, right or wrong,
it still seems to me to have no interaction at all with this
NTIA-IANA transition proposal.

    john

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 22:20:25 +0100

Hello JFC,

I speak only for myself in my answer.

The IETF community was invited to volunteer for these positions. I view the
positions as akin to the liaison manage roles usually appointed to by the IAB,
and it does not seem to me that the IESG is doing anything unusual in the way it
is choosing these representatives.

There are email lists on which the subject matter can be discussed in order to
get a good view of the concerns and possibly of consensus within the IETF. The
representatives being appointed by the IESG are intended to represent the IETF.

Adrian

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:44:54 +0200

John, Adrian,

I am afraid we misunderstand. In a nutshell, I consider that the July 
1978 IEN 48 internetting project:

- first motivation phase is ending. The proof of the catenet concept 
under TCP/IP is completed. President Giscard d'Estain has closed the 
Cyclades project that ARPA has paid for and completed, and the 
alternative RCP project has led to Transpac and X.25 and has also 
closed. The French and US government executive direct/indirect 
influences on hardware and software, bandwidth and code are over. 
NTIA ends it.
- second motivation phase is eventually engaged. It is to provide 
what Tymnet had engaged in June 1978 while new govermental influences 
(Europe, Russia, China) are emerging in a different form (no more 
budgets to pay for the code but laws to influence the code). 
Brainware/collective use is taking preeminance while economy and 
strategies are shifting from information and communications focus to 
intellition, i.e. what makes sense out of received/collected 
communicated information (publicity, press, PRISM, big data, content).

In this process fair competition replacing regulation not possible 
due to cross-subsidization from brainware (edge providers) and 
inbound/outbound dissymetry, laws and public investement must restore 
a fair situation. This will have most probably an important impact on 
the fringe to fringe and edge systems architecture.

The question I raise is who is going to make sure that the kind of 
ubiquity that intellition systems brainware calls for is going to be 
technically documented?
- either in recalling the current technologies limits, possibilities, 
costs, options to other and new stakeholders who will sponsor a new 
tech community?
- or in coordinating a collective documentation, experimentation, 
validation and deployment in the multi-global-community context 
acknowledged but not organized by RFC 6852?

As a result there are two possibilities for the IETF:
- either to help documenting what is existing and what it can do but 
never did yet (transition).
- or to work on the architectural extensions the new 
geo-political-use will call for (evolution).

In front of this there are two possibilities for the NTIA/ICANN process:
- either they listen to the IETF and OpenStand allies and cooperate.
- or they do not.

This will impact the position of Governments, as I see in the current 
".wine", ".vin" issue, and in turn my capacity of access to the 
hardware, software and brainware current reality (i.e; what I cannot 
change by mu own).

1. I need to know my options and decide my road-map. This is why I 
wish to know (I am not interested  in discussing it: I am banned) the 
IETF project, and it to be efficiently  defended (for stability 
reasons). This is why I need the IETF to delegate two people 
specialized, one for the political cooperation scenario and the other 
for the political change scenaroi.

Question 1. What is the architectonical project of the IETF? To 
remain at the software protocol strtatum, or to extend in the virtual 
hardware, layer six and the low brainware layers?
Question 2. How is this coordinated within the OpenStand partners?
Question 3. The NTIA transfers authority. The liaisons are not to be 
experts but leaders with a target and powers. What is the target, 
what are the powers?

2. I need to survive and develop with what is available to me now. I 
am in the same situation as many others, with the difference that (1) 
I have been in charge of the early years of what is to be deployed, 
this was before the industry's status-quo strategy took over (2) I 
planned and tested ahead how the internet technology could support it.

I have two options:

- either I use the solutions that the IETF will quickly and credibly 
document for my type of use and accomodate the positive or negative 
outcome of the NTIA/ICANN transition.
- or I adapt the existing solutions by myself, alone or in 
coordinating with allies, something everyone may have to do in hurry, 
to best accomodate the positive or negative aspects of the NTIA/ICANN 
transition. My feeling is that the best interest of Virtual Glocal 
Networks is that solution proposers coordinate.

I have nothing more to say. I will attentively listen to you. And we 
will proceed by our own for the best of our members.

jfc