Re: [Ianaplan] Summary/refinement of scenarios discussed so far (was Constructive redirect -- focusing discussions)

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

Subramanian,

I will use your mail to summarize the WG current achievements while 
waiting for the Chairs' decision regarding my request to the IESG for 
an appropriate review of our charter that is needed to permit a 
complete and responsible multistakeholder based IETF response to the 
NTIA March 14, 2014 questions posed to ICANN.

A. Other communities
     ==============

At 23:55 23/09/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>My current understanding is the above does not cover the IANA 
>functions which are supposed to be discussed by the other two 
>"operational communities".  The Charter goes on to say that:
>
>   "Should proposals made by other communities regarding the transition
>    of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries
>    or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them."
>
>I have not seen any proposal from other communities.

At 02:00 24/09/2014, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>to my knowledge, there is no such proposal yet. When they will be 
>ready, we will review them.

This calls for two remarks :

1.  To my knowledge the charter does not specify two communities.

I want to make clear that I belong the Internet Users Community and I 
speak as one of its member, i.e. as an "IETF Customer" as we are 
sometimes inadequately qualified in some texts. The interests of my 
community were traditionnally supposed to be conveniently represented 
by the US procurement process and the quality of its obtained 
deliveries guaranteed by the expertise of its Contracting Officers.

As part of this US procurement process the US NTIA currently 
contracts with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers 
Authority (IANA) functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with 
Verisign under which it performs related root zone management 
functions. The NTIA's responsibility includes the procedural role of 
administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the 
database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level 
domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS 
"ICANN/NTIA" Class "IN".

1.1. On March 14, 2014, to support and enhance the multistakeholder 
model of Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce 
Department's National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition key Internet 
domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. As 
the first step, NTIA has asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a 
proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the 
coordination of the Internet's domain name system (DNS). 
Transitioning NTIA out of its role marks the final phase of the 
privatization of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997.

1.2. NTIA has informed ICANN that it expects that in the development 
of the proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the directly 
affected parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society 
(ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain 
name operators, VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders. 
This point seems to have been singularly misunderstood by ICANN 
increasing some global stakeholders distrust already expressed in 
Dubai, on Dec 14, 2012:

- ICANN seems to confuse the development of a proposal to transition 
the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet's 
domain name system "ICANN/NTIA" Class "IN" with a take-over of the 
entire NTIA responsibilities.
- and, in so doing, not to consider the concerns of the "interested 
global stakeholders" presently relying on the sovereign authority, 
requirements and expertise of the US procurement process as if it was 
going to disappear.


2. The Chair states that "there is no such proposal yet. When they 
will be ready, we will review them".

This is an important change from the Charter and only says that the 
WG may review and comment them.


B. Other communities
     ==============

>Could the WG Chairs clarify whether discussions of "names" and 
>"numbers" are within the scope of the Charter?

At 02:00 24/09/2014, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>that is not what is written above. What is written above in the 
>charter is clear.

>At 15:48 24/09/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:
>We're only talking about the protocol parameters registries here.

This "status-quo" position is clearly stated by the chairs. It 
opposes every possibility of innovation or the discussion of special 
cases resulting from IUse, Name and Numbers communities where names, 
numbers and parameters could be entangled.


C. First deliverable
     ============

>According to RFC 2418:
>
>   "The agenda should contain at least:
>
>    - The items for discussion;
>    - The estimated time necessary per item; and
>    - A clear indication of what documents the participants will need to
>      read before the session in order to be well prepared."
>
> From the announcement ( 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13248.html ):
>
>   "The main agenda item is the first deliverable of the working group,
>    where an individual draft will be discussed and reviewed to be
>    adopted by the working group."
>
>I assume that the individual draft which the announcement refers to 
>is one written by Eliot and Russ.  There is no mention of that in 
>the announcement.  I do not think that the announcement is in line 
>with RFC 2418.

At 01:57 24/09/2014, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>Currently, to my knowledge, there is only one draft addressing the 
>charter deliverable, and it is : 
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lear-iana-icg-response-01.txt.
>If there are other drafts, then we will look at them.

This means that this draft is the main agenda item.

This draft is in two sections.

- "Section 1 contains an introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF".
- "Section 2 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG 
and a formal response by the IETF."

I note that Section 2 presents a formal response by the IETF most 
probably based upon an IETF doctrine which should be sourced in 
Section 1, but is not.

It therefore means that we need to build up an IETF doctrine, based 
upon a WG Charter considering the IETF responsibility to the internet 
and its multiple global stakeholders begining with (IMHO) with the 
Internet Users. This charter MUST differentiate the parameters free 
availability and their publication of reference.

This draft states that "Because of the nature of the agreement, 
questions of jurisdiction are immaterial". This is in opposition with 
the IETF Trust which was formed on December 15, 2005, for, among 
other things, the purpose of acquiring, holding, maintaining and 
licensing certain existing and future intellectual property used in 
connection with the Internet standards process and its 
administration. Accordingly, pursuant to RFC 5378, Contributors to 
the IETF Standards Process grant the IETF Trust certain licenses with 
respect to their IETF Contributions, the IETF Trust grants in its 
turn to others, among other channels through the registry operators 
such as IANA. Some IETF works or derivative works from IETF works may 
be constrained according to the jurisdiction.


D. The Milestones
      ===========

The Milestones are therefore :

- to review the Charter with the IESG
- to build a consensual IETF doctrine regarding
--- the NTIA request concerning the transition of its DNS 
"ICANN/NTIA" class "IN" resposibilities to ICANN.
--- the consequences for the Internet and its global 
multistakeholders and communities (RFC 6852) of the NTIA's IANA transition.
- respond to the questions of the ICG regarding the DNS "ICANN/NTIA" 
class "IN" resposibilities to ICANN.
- respond adequately to the question of the ICG and other global 
multistakeholders and communities irt. the consequences of the NTIA's 
IANA transition

Due to the importance of these issues and the need for considerable 
considrations and universal consensus, a confirmation by Lawrence 
Strickling is necessary: is the date of Sept 30, 2015 the date for 
the DNS "ICANN.NTIA" Class "IN" root file management or for the whole 
IANA functions transition?

jfc