Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 01 June 2015 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23E21A064C for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:34:02 -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 kiZZNXhelTqt for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC711A0545 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacux9 with SMTP id ux9so78519011pac.3 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8La3Y7pU1binWAgfKPqyI+t8s4BnDXO9pCUpFWNYBwc=; b=rfA00TK2gh9N3fYhZBAprcAYxbochpcfaAWMybRojjxEDUj0vkUsqykBn8ZS+OjFyy rPPoStu8W5O8wiGNxFmUvnT2D22UAD9sMWal37/ukaVuWypDFUK2bPb8WE9X8mLsZKjk HgY1lG6tvLG3aoUdJuQsFVbxNRNBrcFyz3kPyiPZ7fzmsHHoTZr0VZXhUa20au4XvCqB +KhTWQF6iXatnmlNNR/l7IbCZBKt9ca6Cr5PrkgqlEDVLG9BfHwAGsc8mcDewyfGstSG ZharubcUh2amV00ucfO8Jh+SFCjGnRf/bI8yj4u8neBbj8vIKq2gU0Ka5KcHa94xkIRF B38Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r5mr44460652pdr.139.1433198041087; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by with ESMTPSA id eu5sm15292167pbb.44.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:33:56 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benson Schliesser <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" <>, Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:34:03 -0000

On 02/06/2015 09:38, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> wrote:
>> Hi Leslie,
>> On 02/06/2015 01:39, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>>> I think the result is shaping up well, and the response should be sent.
>> On the question of who signs it:  As I have stated
>>> elsewhere — I think it’s great to get the IETF’s input on the response,
>> but I don’t see the IANAPLAN WG as having an operational
>>> position to commit the IETF on such matters as timeframes for
>> implementation.
>>> And if it’s not a WG matter, I don’t understand why the WG Chairs would
>> sign it.
>> Concur. If the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, the IAOC Chair and the Trust
>> Chair
>> would co-sign it, we'd be in good shape.
> I've been considering this topic, and I think Leslie's perspective and
> Brian's proposal are reasonable. But to be honest, I'm comfortable with any
> one of the approaches that have been proposed.
> My earlier agreement with Russ' proposal stems from the understanding that
> the ianaplan chairs were the recipients of the question. As such it makes
> sense that they should sign this statement. But the IETF chair is the best
> person to indicate IETF consensus. The IAOC chair is the best person to
> indicate specific plans around the contracts etc. And the Trust chair (me)
> is the best person to indicate our willingness regarding the trademarks etc.
> That being said, 5 signatories is getting to the point of being silly. I'd
> be equally happy to simply have Jari sign it on our behalf. It doesn't seem
> worth laboring over - if there is consensus either way, then Jari has the
> mandate as far as I'm concerned.

I would certainly not object to that. A slightly pernickety point is the
original MoU with ICANN was signed by the IETF Chair (Fred Baker) and
co-signed by the IAB Chair (me). That was to avoid any discussion about
where the authority lay on our side. (The IAB charter says "The IAB must
approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA on behalf of
the IETF. The IANA takes technical direction on IETF protocols from the IESG.")