[discuss] Transiting e-mails

Wed Jan 8 17:33:12 UTC 2014

At 01:27 08/01/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>This is why the question is: will the balkanization of the internet 
>result from the IAB governance? If people do not trust the internet 
>anymore it is because they trust the NSA, as being fully able to 
>make it insecure. Why is the NSA able to do it so easily? Whose 
>fault? The internet is broken, who can fix it? What is the cost? If 
>the fault is with the IAB governance, can we trust the IAB 
>governance to fix it?

Michel,

The problem you raise does not really belong to the IAB/IETF. The 
IETF's scope is end to end information transport through datagrams.

1. For your documentation

The IUCG gathers documents, works, and positions on Digital Security 
and Awareness at 
<http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness>http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness. 
You will find the RFCs and Drafts on the matter there as well as the 
founding rationales (you can add others if you wish). Please note 
that anything the IETF can do in this area is obviously 
architecturally limited by RFC 3914 on OPES, which explains how 
to
bypass everything!

2. IAB Governance

Brian has some difficulty understanding what "governance" is, 
especially in considering the Governance of/by the IAB, you also 
consider his IAB implication as a Chair. Let's forget about it. The 
IAB and IETF will never help your security. All they have to do is to 
ensure that you receive the datagrams, as all the ITU has to do is to 
make sure the bandwidth is available and active. The ITU is about 
basic electric services, and the IETF is about value added data 
services. We are interested in extended intelligent services. You 
have no more/no less reason to involve the IETF than the ITU (unless 
you want to pollute them or get polluted by their possible errors).

The problem certainly comes from the IAB and its lack of innovation 
dynamism. The IAB has not provided the IETF with the necessary 
motivation and guidance for it to stay abreast of the other 
technologies (lines, hardware, software programming, usership 
brainware) and of their own progresses (like benefiting from subsidiarity).

This way the IAB/ITF has correctly plaid its role: to provide a 
transport reliable security vulnerable network system that would 
provide global, controllable, and controlled access. However, it has 
not scaled and the system has become technically and politically too 
weak. Corrective actions were necessary to restore control on the 
technical and political governance.

3. Internet I*consolidation strategy

This was conducted by Lynn and the 11 CEOs during the last two years, 
including ICANN in the 2013 falls. Montevideo weekend and meeting 
with Dilma. Nnow ICANN could probably pretend it has bitten the IoT 
leadership bait; and give a good reason for working on network 
security consolidation without alarming the other national cyber 
security agencies (let's call them NCSAs for not always talking of 
the US one, and not immediately stepping-up at Cyber-Commands R&D 
procurement budgets, like DARPA, and their intellition projects, like 
<http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Cyber_Grand_Challenge_%28CGC%29.aspx>http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Cyber_Grand_Challenge_%28CGC%29.aspx)

After the "Variant WG", and the DNSSEC ploy, we will probably see a 
GAC CyberSecurity/EDI Advisory Commitee

4. The Snowden interlude operation

With RFC 6852 and its Modern Paradigm for Standard, the IAB has 
stepped down from its de facto architectonic guidance undesired 
obligations. This is now supposed to be assumed by whoever will be 
able to authoritatively read the "economics of the global markets 
fueled by technological advancements". There is no one designated yet 
for that (hence my pending appeal): we will see who are the Sao Paulo 
co-chairs.

The three candidates (with coding capacity) I would consider would be:

* IEEE,
* DARPA,
* and the grassroots "intelligent use" community we need to inform 
and probably fruitfully ally with Govs (as per the good reasons 
detailed by IAB in RFC 3869).

By design, in the network pile, security issues are to be addressed 
at the (purposely) missing layer six presentation. Initially it was a 
good move for a proof of concept; eventually it has become the IAB 
"internet BUG" in not keeping in tune with the implications of the 
conceptual validation success that were hinted at in IEN 48.

The Snowden Show came one year after OpenStand agreement and six 
month after the WCIT clash. It was to reunite the two halfes of the 
world (OECD/BRICS) in an ICANN led project in fear that 
uncontrollable grassroots could become influent. Snowden is to make 
people aware that these issues are serious issues for Tax 
paid/evaders experts rather than Tax payers professionnals.

5. Let get real: the global cyberwar

The real difficulty for us today is that enforcing security on the 
network is affecting the security of the USA and other main countries 
(we are talking of real cyberwar issues) unless the way the layer six 
is introduced is coordinated with the Cyber Defense community; 
according to the CyberWar laws and conventions. Protecting HRs, 
developing business, fighting crime, etc. is nice but useless if one 
does not first keep people alive...

One has to realize that most of the existing digital protections are 
obsolete and that the cyber world war is a currently ongoing endemic 
global war, where precaution is quasi unheard of by its artificial 
battlefield designers, hence the difficulty to proceed without a 
cultural leap (searched Snowden's effect?) because the tools have not 
been developed, defenses have not been built, and the brainware is 
absent. The real problem is that the US status quo digital dominance 
and the IAB lack of innovative dynamism have left the vital, 
business, and personal processes of the digital Empires without 
serious digital fortifications.

6. The Sao Paulo deal

This is why BRICS economies feel really concerned. They do not want 
to be digitally dependent. They want to empower themselves, not 
wishing to be e-colonized like  Europe. Sao Paulo is a second round 
that they organize after the WCIT, to settle the deal. Let go ahead 
together and not separately with Internet 2.0, layer six and 
intellition. Within a globalized ICANN framework. Opposing together 
any Open IUse independant innovation initiative.

-  Being Govs, they will have political, industrial and military objectives.
-  Being commercial sponsors (ISOC) having been sold influence on the 
IETF affiliate technology their interest is in financial results.
-  Being users (lead users, FLOSS, small corporations, developing 
countries) our interest is to build our own person-centric third 
global community (as per RFC 6852) based on technological leadership 
and self-protection.

Our interest is to be on the innovation side in order to protect/win 
our independence from the US/Asian/European industry and their 
possible monetary/business collapse. (How can you make a digital 
economy built on advertising sustainable when our user interest is to 
build advertisement firewalls, and when we are the product?)

jfc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140108/f288f336/attachment.html>