Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

"To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement that- 1. captures provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; and"

Similar to my comment above, I think this should align with the other bits about the IAOC, i.e.,

"To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to engage with the IANA functions operator regarding: 1. maintaining the IANA functions operator's obligations established under provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; and”

I have no problem with the wording change above.



I do. Replacing “conclude a supplemental agreement …” with “engage with the IANA functions operator regarding…” replaces very specific wording and requirements with very vague and noncommital stuff. I don’t know what it means to “engage with.” I don’t know what the outcome of such an “engagement” would be.

A compromise version of this wording might read:

To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement that – 1. Maintains the IANA functions operator's obligations established under provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; and

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>


=

"requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to a subsequent operator."

I continue to be against the inclusion of this provision in the transition plan. It implicitly requires there to only ever be one operator in the future, and it is not in the IETF’s interest to force that to be the case. That may have been in NTIA’s interests, but we have different needs from NTIA.


Based on what you wrote above I had previously misunderstood your concern.  I propose a small change for this response with the expectation that we will engage others in the process of further developing a consolidated response:

"requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to subsequent operators."

Clearly there will need to be additional discussion with the RIRs in particular about iana.org.



== Response to Section IV:

"What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of supplemental agreement(s) discussed in the previous section of this RFP.”

Per my comments above, I don’t think we should specify the form of the output of the IAOC’s work. My suggestion:

"What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of the IAOC’s engagements discussed in the previous section of this RFP to the satisfaction of the IAOC.”


I do not believe this is sufficiently clear for our intent to be understood and prefer the original text.


=== Nits ===

Thanks for catching them.  I've only left in the ones for which there is something to add.


In general, I think we should use the term “protocol parameters registries” in the plural rather than the singular, and use it consistently throughout the document.

I've made this change.  Please review in the next version as there were a lot of edits.


s/No changes are required, as over the years/No changes are required. Over the years/

This text has changed.

Eliot