[ianatransition] responses to Richard

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Jul 31 12:38:24 UTC 2014

Dear Richard,
Let me review your pertinent questions from my multiglocal IEN 48 
double motivation (heretical?) point of view.

>At 09:16 29/07/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>It clearly indicates that the ultimate authority for all the 
>resources in question (names, addresses, protocol parameters) is the 
>US government and that the US government has outsourced the 
>technical management function for those resources to ICANN.

Correct. The US Government is the current owner of the US VGN 
(Virtual Glocal Network) that it made a quasi-monopoly through the 
ICANN "unique authoritative root" urban legend.

>If there is no IANA contract with NTIA, then the question arises who 
>has the ultimate authority

Those who pay, i.e.:
-       either the I*dominants and their vassals (ISOC is a candidate 
for federating them)
-       and/or the users (the multitude).

Since the dominants are not interested in the users: no one.

>and who decides to whom to outsource the technical management function?

There are presently three main responses:
- the former one (old normative paradigm): I*dominants.
- the global communities whose standards (modern normative paradigm) 
are led by their economy (RFC 6852 by IEEE, IETF, IAB, ISOC, W3C) 
coordinated by mono-led US industry multistakeholderism.
- the emergence from intelligent use practices - it is supposed to be 
hosted, fostered, and concerted at the IGF.

>If you look at the current IANA web site, it says that IANA is 
>responsible for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP 
>addressing, and other Internet protocol resources. One can argue 
>that "global coordination" means implementing policies decided 
>elsewhere, but one could also argue that it means something more.

It means what it can effectively mean for the reduced InterNIC: 
everything specific they wish for the "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) Class, etc. 
in addition to the common coordination that every VGNIC assumes for 
its own VGN in order to maintain their intended connectivity.

Until now, the InterNIC reduction (to the sole "IN" Class, retaining 
the whole IP addressing) has not cared about any interconnectivity, 
obliging most (except locally) to use it as their (addressing) 
referent. This was made possible by the US sovereignty of which the 
umbrella has since 1977 been a guarantee of global digital stability 
as it permitted the US digitality to be on an equal footing with 
foreign PTT's monopoly.

>If you look at the current IANA web site, it says that IANA is 
>responsible for the global coordination of the DNS Root, IP 
>addressing, and other Internet protocol resources. One can argue 
>that "global coordination" means implementing policies decided 
>elsewhere, but one could also argue that it means something more

It rests with the machines (capability) and users (policy). ICANN can 
help as a common secretariat. It represents no interest and has no 
legitimacy as a stand-alone non-sovereign leader.

However, if dealing with the non "IN" DNS class and root is easy 
enough, IP addressing may lead to arm twisting. IP addressing is to 
rest with geographical coordinates or country codes (not for routing 
but for unicity).

>ICANN's bylaws state that it coordinates the allocation and 
>assignment of the resources in question. That means that ICANN has 
>the ultimate authority at least to decide what process to use to 
>coordinate the allocation and assignment, and indeed ICANN does 
>exert that authority, because ICANN has created supporting 
>organizations that submit proposals to the ICANN board.

Internal stuff. This is good management if it permits ICANN to better 
perform its job for the ICANN VGN and its interconnects. It is BS otherwise.

>Going back to IP addresses, from ICANN's point of view, it considers 
>proposals from the ASO and acts on the basis of those proposals. As 
>the charter of the ASO says "The purpose of the ASO is to review and 
>develop recommendations on Internet Protocol (IP) address policy and 
>to advise the ICANN Board".

So the RIRs and/or NRO might think that they have ultimate authority, 
but NTIA and ICANN have a different formal position. This has not 
been a problem in practice up to now because it was understood that 
NTIA expected ICANN to defer to the NRO/RIRs.

Proceeding otherwise would be a "coup". Since the ASO is only 
advisory to ICANN and is supposed to defer to the NRO. The question 
here is: what is the NRO's legitimate authority? I only know one: local State.

>But what happens when there is no NTIA? Does ICANN have ultimate 
>authority, or do the RIRs/NRO have ultimate authority?

NTIA has a historic authority based upon the legitimacy that for 37 
years it worked. In that system, the FCC/NTIA historic global 
monopoly was never technically challenged the way the internet 
technology was read because it fit with the way it was used and 
governed (both technically and politically).

This has changed. This change occurred two years ago on the technical 
side (OpenStand/RFC 6852) and it is occurring now on the political 
side (after the WCIT defeat on Dec 14th, 2012)

>That point needs to be clarified.


However, one has to clearly identify that this clarification only 
concerns one branch of the offer's fork. The branch of the fork which 
is driven by the US mono/multistakeholderism exclusive choice 
demanded by the NTIA.

The demand is not only NTIA decided, it is also market (global 
communities) and people (user) driven. Once the NTIA is gone, the 
natural emptiness will be filled by a mix of market and people 
responses. This is what is to be identified.

An NTIA transition agreement would be of interest only for the thing 
to proceed seamlessly. However, it would be only about transitionning 
the past. If ICANN wants to stay around it must look for a future 
agreement with the people as being both the markets and the states.

 From the comments on this list, I think it is a bad idea for ICANN 
to still think BUG (being unilaterally global) rather than thinking 
people's reality: the NTIA requirements may represent/compose wih the 
US industry (this is its job) but not necessarily even with the US 
people and technicians.

>And it is not a purely theoretical point. ICANN is subject to US 
>law. Suppose that a US court orders ICANN to transfer some IP 
>addresses to party X, because party X sued ICANN and won the case 
>under some peculiar US law.
>If ICANN has ultimate authority, then ICANN has to comply with the 
>court order. But if the RIRs have ultimate authority, then ICANN 
>cannot do anything, so nothing happens.
>Of course party X could try to enforce the judgement against the 
>RIRs, but if the IP addresses in question were not assigned by ARIN, 
>then they might not succeed, because a non-US court would not 
>necessarily enforce an order of a US court that is based on some 
>peculiar US law.

QED. The DNS is pure private use conventions between the caller and 
the receiver that are actively facilitated by third parties. This is 
not the case of local network ASs. This is why they MUST be attached 
to a global treaty (WCIT) or a universally accepted Standard (ISO 
3166) in order to be TRUSTED.

>At 09:32 29/07/2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>On 7/29/14, 9:16 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>>That point needs to be clarified and this is the crux of the 
>>matter: does ultimate authority for, say, IP addresses rest with 
>>the NRO? Or with ICANN?
>For the umpteenth time, no. The operational authority rests with 
>service providers.

Yes, but two comments:
(1) the service providers are selected by the users to route their 
traffic. So the eventual primary routing decision is with the user.
(2) everything you say is correct. However, increasingly the choice 
is among "DSPs", i.e. digital services providers (edge services, 
cloud, SDN, Networks in the network [e.g. Internet2, 
military/corporate accelerators, streaming,] etc.) so you actually 
choose (or build yourself) parts of your multi-part VGN.

This means that the final authority is with users' in house, city, or 
externalized digital operators.

>How they route the packets and which addresses they choose to use is 
>up to them. This system is built on cooperation, not arm twisting.

I am afraid that in a Cyberwar context this cooperation (The US is 
cyberdestructible) is not enough. Removing the NTIA leaves NSA/USCC 
as the USG arms, aside of the slow minded US Congress legislation. I 
for one does not trust the US Congress cyberlegislative 
ability/celerity. I suspect I am not alone.

>As a matter of coordination, the RIRs are vested with the authority

By who? You seem to mean by de facto usage. This means that the 
ultimate authority is by users, again. And agin, you refer to a past 
situation where everyone used the advantages of the US VGN stability 
protected by the NTIA as a soverign exective body.

>to establish and execute policies by them because there is strong 
>agreement that address allocation coordination is necessary.

Yes. Until now, it was assumed by management under US supervision. 
Once the US supervision is gone, others may want to replace that 
supervision. The only way to avoid this kind of conflict is to 
automate the management. This is what we did with ccTLDs. It has 
worked without any interference for 36 years.

>In extremely limited circumstances a matter can be appealed to the 
>ICANN board through the ASO, but I don't think it has ever happened. 
>Clearly the RIRs are doing a fine job or there would have been 
>conflicts in allocation. To the best of my knowledge that has never happened.

Under a past context. The new political context may create new 
circumstances based on opposition to ICANN as not being sovereign. 
What will happen by then? War?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140731/9c86a9bf/attachment.html>

More information about the ianatransition mailing list