Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 07 October 2015 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E151A0100 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dXFY5p9UX5Tk for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BE71A00FF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4962CC9C; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:35:36 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bHnMfVikqf2S; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:35:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7070F2CC6B; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:35:35 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF55BDF4-D219-49B4-B935-E89E3EB51DFA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <2FE967B1-8ACD-4997-9759-986C1481ADBF@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:35:34 +0300
Message-Id: <656C71AA-8AD5-42CE-B4B7-133EC4C3734E@piuha.net>
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in> <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com> <CAD_dc6gSKTURuXkFuay8dUKm6i+c9amEgmRQ_-Y37C_hv5i45Q@mail.gmail.com> <20150929151542.GB86614@mx2.yitter.info> <560AC921.4090700@gih.com> <D838CBAB-B68F-407A-9D83-8CAA745D00F9@vigilsec.com> <2FE967B1-8ACD-4997-9759-986C1481ADBF@thinkingcat.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/4l_5nLmhEF-ZoIjwfNJ6s3iwGsc>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:35:40 -0000

> At this point, I’m simply going to observe that the WG does not seem to raise any objection to the statement that informal coordination exists today and will continue, which is consistent with the commitment requested by the ICG

I think that is correct.

And agree with Ted’s friendly amendment.

People should know that the IAB is preparing a response as well,
and this seems to me quite appropriate, given the role of IAB
in overseeing IANA and being the liaison from IETF to other entities.

I will take the conclusion from the working group and carry
a message to the ICG. Draft text:

——

The IANAPLAN working group has discussed the coordination
question from the ICG. In the working group’s opinion,
informal coordination exists today and will continue, which
is consistent with the commitment requested by the ICG.

This is also consistent with an overall coordination commitment
already indicated in the IANAPLAN proposal. The proposal
is a consensus document of the IETF. From the proposal:

   The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other
   parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation
   of the Internet registries.

The coordination approach is also consistent with the
comments that were sent by the IAB to the ICG during the
public comment period. See
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-icg-proposal/.

Jari Arkko,
IETF Chair and the Area Director for the IANAPLAN WG