Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> Mon, 04 May 2015 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@arin.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 0FB041AC3BA for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:46:23 -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 sSovJ6wWaFG7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E15B1A9237 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 May 2015 17:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 13A2C164E6D; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:46:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chaedge01.corp.arin.net (chaedge01.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EF6164DAA; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:46:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CHACAS01.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.107) by chaedge01.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:52:18 -0400
Received: from CHAMBX01.corp.arin.net ([fe80::1cef:1d7:cca9:5953]) by CHACAS01.corp.arin.net ([fe80::a98b:1e52:e85a:5979%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sun, 3 May 2015 20:46:12 -0400
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] it's more than that
Thread-Index: AQHQhfM+SIBUn9xub0ewnzM8zQxV/J1rLM8AgAARyAA=
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 00:46:12 +0000
Message-ID: <7D9B6ABA-AB68-4727-9FE7-FB061642CF04@arin.net>
References: <20150503234234.33629.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150503234234.33629.qmail@ary.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.96]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BDC583AD4FE1DB4382207BD65B1250DF@corp.arin.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/A4T9jrEDqzR7NfpUWzoukoABhdk>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 04 May 2015 00:46:23 -0000

On May 3, 2015, at 7:42 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/icann_iana_latest/
>> 
>> If ICANN is really saying take it or leave it, I don't see that we
>> and the RIRs have any option but to leave it.  That would be a huge
>> hassle, but given ICANN's history, does anyone dare to give them
>> what is in effect a blank check?
>> 
>> I see zero chance of that happening - ...
> 
> Just to make sure I counted my negatives correctly, do I correctly
> understand that you see zero chance of the blank check happening?

Correct - I see zero chance of ICANN being given a blank check.  My reasoning 
is as follows - 

    1) NTIA has said that the proposed IANA stewardship transition plan must 
        have broad community support 

    2) The protocol parameter and numbers community plan components that 
         have been drafted already enjoy broad support and specifically include
         termination conditions

    3) A plan which gets changed to entirely eliminate the termination conditions 
        (i.e. a ‘blank check’) has zero chance gaining broad community support. 
        Even if such were offered by IETF or RIR leadership respectively, it fails 
        to meet NTIA’s core requirement of broad community support.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN