Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

Some thoughts on specific language below.

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think we are going about this from a slightly wrong direction.
> I think there’s some desire on ICANN side to transition in an
> atomic fashion. Right or wrong...
>
> But I think the answer from our side is essentially: we are
> ready to proceed with the (final) steps of the transition today,
> if NTIA, ICANN, etc. are. And these steps are “final” because
> much of the necessary structure in our case has been built
> in earlier years. And at least from my perspective those
> steps could also be seen as our normal course of yearly
> business improvement, rather than some grandiose
> moment that various people need to get very excited
> about :-)
>
> Anyway, also, as discussed in the last days, different directions
> in the details for the CWG process might have effects that we have
> to consider.
>
> And of course, if at any point in time someone wants us to
> do something different or more, that would have an effect.
>
> But I think my answer today would be as follows. Basing it
> on John’s excellent text:
>
> “The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
> in place and implemented in preceding years.
>
> From our perspective the remaining step is an updated
> SLA with ICANN which addresses two issues.


​Should we not summarize these issues here?​



> The update
> has been drafted and from our perspective could be
> immediately executed. When executed — and with
> the NTIA contract with ICANN is voided -- from our
> perspective the protocol parameter community
> has completed the stewardship transition.
> ​
>

Would this also work: "
Once these SLAs are in place, the transition would be substantially
complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step.
" ?


> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
> with other parts of the process may bring additional
> tasks that need to be executed either before or
> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
> the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust
> has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if
> asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this
> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
> execution once the decision is made. From our
> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
> however.
>
> Second, the names community has developed a
> “Post Transition IANA” (PTI) structure in their
> proposal. Not all details of that are clear at this
> point in time. Depending on the final setting of
> those details, this may require no further action
> from the IETF, if we can keep our existing contracts
> in place. That is our preference. However, if the names
> community decides on a structure that requires changes
> to our contracts or further participation in the internal
> structure governing the PTI, this will require further
> work and community agreement.”
>
>
​I think we may want to highlight this slightly differently.

"In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post
Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing agreements between the IETF and
ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the
IETF​ transition would take place as described above.  That is our
preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require further action
from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required.  The
timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known."

regards,

Ted




> Jari
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>