As I announced it on Aungust 28th, I consider appealing RFC 6852 (the market oriented ISOConsortium rather than the better Internet oriented IETF). For calendar reasons I would have to foreward it this week. The reason why is that I gave the IAB, IETF and ISOC Chairs all the time before and after the WCIT to explain the Internet research, engineering and users communities their vision of the Internet technical evolution and to clarify their "OpenStand" strategy, in relation with our expectations for an "OpenUse" architectural effort (a better, neutral and secure use of the Internet). What do they think better to foster with the other stakeholders (Govs, Civil Society and International Organizations): cooperation, coopetition, or competition? Or do they think the Internet technological "statUS-quo" under the self-governance of the private sector is a more most advisable incremental development path? In such a case we would be better to keep and protect it: organizing its "adminance" (technical governance) together, within their market monopoly framework, as we did for ICANN. I will come back on this in the coming days, but I would already like to know if some have new positions to suggest. I plan to look carefully at the positions already expressed by Stephane Bortzmeyer, Michael Gurstein, Daniel Kalchev, Avri Doria, Lee McKnight, Suresh Ramasubramanian, Kerry Brown, Norbert Bollow, Dominique Lacroix, McTim, Adam Peake, Louis Pouzin, Carlos Alfonzo, Ian Peter, Nick Ashton-Hart, Alejandro Pisanty, and others on ther lists. I underline that it cannot be a direct debate on the very mission of the IETF and of the Civil Society technical involvement: it can only directly consider the respect of the RFC 2026 Internet standard process and RFC 4845 IAB publication process in publishing RFC 6852. Otherwise I would be dismissed. So, the point is to show that due to the very nature of the matter at hand they could/should have used other rules, and therefore that they had taken decisions. I pland to object these decisions as inadequate in making everyone understand where they, IETF and we stand. And therefore to have a decision to publish a clarification on the way RFC 6852 does not conflict with : - RFC 3869 (IAB Concerns and Recommendations regarding Internet Research and Evolution) - and RFC 3935 (mission and core values of the ITEF). The appeal is in three rounds: one to the IETF, with escalation to the IAB and final to ISOC. I have several times strategically appealed the IESG/IAB. The effort of this appeal would only be acceptable for me if it truely helps the community, clarifying how to develop and launching an OpenUse strategy by Civil Society and open to Govs and international organizations, with the cooperation of the engineering community and based upon a reliable and performing better internet, towards a people centered better use of the Internet. Comments welcome. jfc