Subject: [Internetgovtech] ICANN discussions on the transition of NTIA's stewardship

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:11:29 -0400

Last week, some of us visited the ICANN meeting (at the Hilton London Metropole!). Here are a few reflections from a session that I moderated together with Patrik Fältström on this topic:

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2014/07/icann-and-transition-of-ntias-stewardship/

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 07:05:28 +0100

Thanks for the share Jari, it was good that the bullet point 1 item in the
summary achieved consensus ;)

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 2 Jul 2014 04:12, "IETF Chair" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Last week, some of us visited the ICANN meeting (at the Hilton London
Metropole!). Here are a few reflections from a session that I moderated
together with Patrik Fältström on this topic:

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 06:19:48 -0400

(no hats)

The best part was the hum.

Seriously, the session was well-done, not least for demonstrating some of the working methods the IETF uses that one hopes the coordination group will adopt as well. 

The problem to be solved is relatively narrow for the IETF, but the coordination group has a slightly separate task as well.  Their task amounts to coordinating the inputs of multiple design teams on multiple components, some of which have to interoperate without unacceptable side effects, for a coherent plan to be formed. Mostly those interoperation mechanisms are in place but not all. 

The IETF/IAB participants' experience is going to be useful in keeping the effort on course. Thanks to those who've stepped up.

Suzanne

On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for the share Jari, it was good that the bullet point 1 item in the summary achieved consensus ;)
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> sent from Google nexus 4

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:06:24 +0200

On 05:11 02/07/2014, IETF Chair said:
>Last week, some of us visited the ICANN meeting (at the Hilton 
>London Metropole!). Here are a few reflections from a session that I 
>moderated together with Patrik Fältström on this topic:
>

Jari,

You write "A big part of this work rests on the individual 
communities (e.g., IETF, RIRs, gTLD and ccTLD communities) that are 
the IANA functions customers. Our session discussed expectations both 
for the communities and the community's expectations of the 
Coordination Group moving forward."

This sounds reasonable. However, it delimitates the work to IANA 
functions ***customers*** (as contributors) and does not includes 
IANA functions ***users*** (who also use other comparable functions). 
Does this means that in your opinion neither the global (RFC 6852) 
nor the IUse (at this stage an I_D should be produced to document 
that concept) communities are involved?

I like Pete RFC 7282 but it underlines the separation and differences 
between IETF, IUse and governance. It is based upon the credo: "We 
believe in: rough consensus and running code.". I do not disagree 
with it IRT the IETF mission of documentation (remember my ban was 
***voted*** by the IESG). However, it may conflict with what IUCG 
calls "leaving mode" and RFC 6852 "the economics of global markets, 
fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of 
standards ***regardless*** of their formal status" i.e. what works is 
good, even if it was more or less opposed by rough consensus (ex. NATs)

An IAB/IETF rough consensus will always be  second to global market 
economy (along RFC 6852), i.e. the ecosystem final emergence. Because 
the ecosystem:
- is larger than the sum of all the RFC 6852's "global communities" 
and all the users' internet footings.
- has a real architecture which is more than the sum of the RFCs.

IMHO there is only one way to take this into account if we try to 
stay consistant with IEN 48, the whole scientific, political, 
philosophic, economic "locality issue", and avoid a SOC 
(self-ordering criticality): it is to try to keep clearly 
differentiating global (IETF) and local (IUse) visions while making converge.

- At this stage we tried a compromise with IUsers (IUCG@IETF) within 
the IETF. May be my fault, but this is not enough. It is a possibly 
good liaison/repository if some joined and help. However it cannot 
foster a true cooperation between two different but complementary 
planes, with one being managed by the 30 years old IETF and the other 
still being hardly identified.

- My current experience is slow:  it is to embody the local level 
into a real VGN (virtual glocal network: the networks of the network 
of networks; the local user footing in the internet): my village: as 
an "intelligent village on the information roads". The purpose to be 
copied by, and mesh with, other real life villages, business, trades, 
at fringe to fringe layer six and above, while solidly respecting and 
enhancing layer seven.

As "glocal users" (the term "end user" is an architectural error when 
you read IEN 48) we need to have a contingency plan by September 2015 
in case ICANN does not scale to our needs (up to now, it does not 
want to care). One of our problem is the ICANN and IANA of the other 
systems we (may) use in our real digital glocality. The IETF promotes 
its technology for its internet RFC 6852 global community. This is 
logic. ICANN documents and supports its US VGN. Fair enough/ How does 
the IETF proposes us and where does it document our relation with the 
other global communities it claims to be a benefit for humanity, and 
interface/integrate their technologies?

Suzanne, I am sorry, you are right:

>The problem to be solved is relatively narrow for the IETF,

but it is very ***deep***. How does the IETF mesh with other digital 
technologies (that may use TCP/IP, at least in part - cf. IEN 48 
second motivation) of which we feel it blocks their innovation, the 
same as we feel that ICANN blocks the innovative open use of the IETF 
technology (e.g. DNS)? If the IETF succeeds there, it may save the 
ICANN's day in providing them other good and adequate rules/examples 
to govern complex networking. This was plan in 1978 but we are no 
more in 1978 and we have to get real.

Best
jfc

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:14:35 +0100

sent from Google nexus 4
Metropole!). Here are a few reflections from a session that I moderated
together with Patrik Fältström on this topic:
>
>
> Jari,
>
> You write "A big part of this work rests on the individual communities
(e.g., IETF, RIRs, gTLD and ccTLD communities) that are the IANA functions
customers. Our session discussed expectations both for the communities and
the community's expectations of the Coordination Group moving forward."
> This sounds reasonable. However, it delimitates the work to IANA
functions ***customers*** (as contributors) and does not includes IANA
functions ***users*** (who also use other comparable functions).
Maybe the term "customer" may not be all that encompassing so yes using the
word "user" could be more general enough. Nevertheless I think it does not
remove the fact that users are part of the process. Users for instance
could engage thorough the atlarge or even as an individual since it's an
open process.

<snip> the other part points to the  statement above.

Regards

---

From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 23:20:22 +0000

Jari

I was sitting down the back during that session and thought it was excellent. There was a nice balance between people on the stage and interaction from the floor. 

Great work by yourself and Patrik.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

-----Original Message-----
From: Internetgovtech [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of IETF Chair
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; IETF discussion list
Subject: [Internetgovtech] ICANN discussions on the transition of NTIA's stewardship

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:09:52 +0200

> Great work by yourself and Patrik.

Thanks!

   Patrik

---

From: Christian de Larrinaga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:21:38 +0100

Thank you and Jari, Alissa and the others for pitching in. It was really
effective and impressive. The comments have been most positive across
the board. Well done!  Christian

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
[email-masked]
-------------------------