RE: [Internetgovtech] Status of selection of IANA NTIA transition repre

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


At 23:20 22/06/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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
>
>
> > 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."