Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Thu, 28 May 2015 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 2E99E1B2C0C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 3kbc4BPtCBhh for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D931B2B96 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.98] (kuwa.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.98]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C534A403F8; Thu, 28 May 2015 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:27:07 -0400
Message-ID: <A1329726-EB14-4E32-86A9-A76E36262423@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAA3w=V=QTJpSPJnGDJ4VGN4hmv-Kv7Xn7x_T8uLe-RZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMAA3w=V=QTJpSPJnGDJ4VGN4hmv-Kv7Xn7x_T8uLe-RZQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate Trial (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/E-ZLZEv5o3-_Jdq-k52r4wPVcpM>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:27:21 -0000


On 28 May 2015, at 12:17, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I think the formulation below is fine; it's a little long, but that's
> likely okay here.

- actually, pretty short in ICANN world… ;-)
- fine by me too.

Marc, as individual


>
> Ted
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> Eliot:
>>
>>> I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did 
>>> not
>> specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether 
>> through
>> the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we stuck to 
>> that
>> approach and not name which agreement the changes go into (SLA or a
>> one-time supplemental agreement).
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account:
>>
>> “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.
>>
>> The remaining step is an updated agreement with
>> ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
>> outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:
>>
>> o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
>>    is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
>>    acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>>
>> o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
>>    parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
>>    operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
>>    part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
>>    out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
>>    current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
>>    [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
>>    operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
>>    a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
>>    ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
>>    minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
>>    or other resources currently located at iana.org.
>>
>> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
>> decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
>> Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
>> agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
>> perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
>> agreement is 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.
>>
>> 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​
>> ransition 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.”
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan