Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal

John Curran <> Sun, 09 August 2015 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48081ACE49 for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 09:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDzsECliip4O for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 09:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CBE1ACE48 for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 09:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 323) id C6314164EF7; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D222164ECC; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:00:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:08:55 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::905e:9b4d:2909:f55a]) by ([fe80::a98b:1e52:e85a:5979%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:00:36 -0400
From: John Curran <>
To: Bernard Aboba <>, Eliot Lear <>, Jari Arkko <>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
Thread-Index: AQHQ0ryGScQ3DwGnI0SvLaHO1+YBXA==
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:00:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B3BFE2FA2FBF4E7698ED9745E5B6B25Farinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 16:00:51 -0000

On Aug 9, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Bernard Aboba <<>> wrote:

On Aug 9, 2015, at 5:41 AM, Eliot Lear <<>> wrote:

If this agreement is in place, great.  That should be stated.  If the
agreement is not yet in place, then that should be stated in the
transition section (Section V) of the ICG summary.

[BA] The ICG proposal includes requirements for agreements. Compared to an actual agreement this is akin to the sound of one hand clapping.

Due to legal concerns relating to current NTIA-ICANN contract limitations, agreements cannot be signed at this time.  We do not even really know when discussions will be able to resume, what additional concerns might arise when they do, or even whether the requirements can be met once all the obstacles to discussion are removed.

I will observe that the numbers community ran into a similar difficulty when we
proposed that a Service Level Agreement for IANA Numbering Services be
entered in advance of the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions.

As a result of some discussion of the topic with ICANN, we have now made explicit
a "Condition Precedent” in the second draft of the SLA, such that entry into the
agreement would still result in no effect if ICANN has not been released from its
obligations to provide substantially similar services per its NTIA contract by a specific
date (more information, including the second draft of the SLA, can be found here:

It is unclear if this approach would work for implementation of the IANAplan
proposal, as: 1) we have not received a formal response back from ICANN on
this approach, 2) the IETF already has an existing relationship and agreement,
and it is unclear whether a similar mechanism could be applied to only to a
specific set of rights/duties rather than the entire agreement.  I mention it solely
because it may provide a potential avenue of exploration which would allow
further progress on establishing necessary foundational pieces for transition.