[discuss] list reboot

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sun Feb 9 00:12:50 UTC 2014

I do not object at all to RFC 6852, I only object to its 
incompleteness. A first step to address this could be a /1NET 
"OpenStand" complementary RFC on a key issue for the Internet 
Governance. There are 7500+ RFCs + IEEE + W3C + Unicode + ISO 
documents. Ideally, they all want to have their parameters coherently 
supported by the IANA in order to ensure interoperability. However, 
this does not mean that they actually are fully coherent due to the 
complexity reached by the Internet system (that is still going to 
increase as you have shown).

What we would need as informed users (IUsers) is to be professionally 
informed by an I*Book of reference. This looks like an enormous, 
impossible task. However, to continue to understand, support, and 
interoperate the I*technologies without such an authoritative 
throrough compendium seems to also be another impossible challenge. I 
think this should be a core concern of the IG that could be carried through:

- academic courses/MOOC on the I*technology; I*architecture, and 
Digital architectonics as a starting framework everyone could review.
- supervision by the specialized areas of the SDOs, each being 
responsible for the parts of its domain.
- adding in RFCs, and other equivalent documents, an I*Book section, 
as there is a security and an IANA section, documenting the update to be made.
- in this I*Book:
   --- a BCP part could cover the organization and management of each SDO,
   --- a BCU part (best common use) could gather the technical 
"living mode" experimented returns
   --- and an MSC (multi-stakeholders' consensuses) to document a 
paradigmatic Tao of the Internet Governance.


At 14:35 08/02/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>I deduce from the blunt drop in traffic on this mailing list, of the 
>the absence of IG related topic on the forum, and from Avri's 
>acknowledged evaluation of the practical registration tactic, that 
>my evaluation of the /1net politicak trick using the sociotechnical 
>communities was correct.
>This should not prevent this MS mailing list (we do not care how it 
>was created) from discussig what I identify as the main MS issues at hand:
>1) the IoT naming identification. ONS vs. another system. Example:
>2) the ONS integration and suport by the DNS.
>Metadata security. Resolution speed. Access reliabilty in the 
>current DNS increased load. HomeRoot expérimentation. Security 
>(enterprises will depend on B2B inviolability).
>3) Non-ICANN ONS class managed by GS1 or the WTO?
>4) the Business/IUsers/Political/Technical MS extension, 
>replication, security and dissemination of the IANA which is 
>drastically simplified by the RFC 6852 OpenStand agreement (I 
>understand JFC objections, but this seems secondary when we consider 
>the unification of the technical community).
>I note that the M2MWorldCongress 2014 in London is on April 24-25th.
>M G
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list