Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

"Marc Blanchet" <> Thu, 28 May 2015 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E99E1B2C0C for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3kbc4BPtCBhh for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D931B2B96 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C534A403F8; Thu, 28 May 2015 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <>
To: "Ted Hardie" <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:27:07 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>, Jari Arkko <>, Eliot Lear <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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: 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 <> 
> 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
>> 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