Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 24 September 2015 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5991B2DB6 for <>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yh6S267ElFBr for <>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C182D1B2DB4 for <>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so88183803pac.2 for <>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iOGVnkL18nQIBZxK2io7h5qxkUVReoKtrN4sl8sQqGM=; b=f81DGjiPunttBSstIUabszIERmQa/381dfLbHL93uDlyH1CKWcTNqjISKjVmo7MiAB g9njhfdt6++pMFkSImFTKeglR2Kh0mOKcbgHPnJhSGjHsmwghZpIk3zTZ3mtCk0nPZ3t d/e8fpVVyuOZHdjHhzMcMVabmGai3WjWmk9OLk0EbveqE1osA39bZxjHKtJEtryEGBfS +39lkFx0JttGzTas8fbxKrqlJwBk3edsbaOYG3oeb0hXrz5Ny2V1WKmNLKkb3mHA3E5V 4QI761tc4LOaaqln9Fm3ifEWeLK+MxT4PCXmjKmyYBWLB34o0fe0NfK8UIvTUyhMAWbI AKGg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id be3mr3096273pbd.78.1443138590399; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id pi9sm484237pbb.96.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: Russ Housley <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:49:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:49:52 -0000

On 25/09/2015 10:26, Russ Housley wrote:
> I think that we should respond with a very simple confirmation that we plan to continue to coordinate with the other operational communities, but that we do not think that formal processes are necessary to do so.  

fwiw, I certainly agree with that.


> This is consistent with the comments that were sent by the IAB to the ICG.  See
> Russ
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a question for the protocol parameters community. We are requesting a response to this question ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the protocol parameters community requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time.
>> The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the protocol parameters community may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time.
>> The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the protocol parameters operational community provide such a commitment?
 If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.
>> Please let us know if the question requires clarification.
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list