Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry


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