Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Fri, 01 May 2015 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
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 370F71B29D6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 06:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 izVDVx5bhEr0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4004D1B29B5 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2015 06:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkx62 with SMTP id 62so50692564qkx.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 May 2015 06:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=2AZos5iazCq41My8rSj1QEXhdA3QfKdIZoPGCNVAigs=; b=Svho3BDsQzgFFKw/KSuXWz7fJPJwTxyf3mXuT9WdNd2BIxbV48JERE+HDcqi/2sc63 TA4xnXUgoz8fAV2oIB9zaKHVjoEWTuIAENcIhvSclYyr2JlJM+dAldc4vcXoY83YsO+h /5bY1338mAE5k3XBSeToARl/LtJE0RwsHeTK6JXwXGn0gEqcaVtNf9o5MPdhFS/QN3rR Oft7ZIRnW7116/hSWySIOWlm67FA9B2MOTZ41zn6WUgXOkCDwqyG9QgTsZWzrFnkLOB2 bCftXrorAYMXXDCOR+aZOnphO73ikuWJyiBPQwMHIgfuVMckPj6W3XcpvDprVdzrQ3MC ljWw==
X-Received: by 10.55.51.141 with SMTP id z135mr18951685qkz.84.1430487147471; Fri, 01 May 2015 06:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.157.20 with HTTP; Fri, 1 May 2015 06:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150501130948.GF68855@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <CAD_dc6iu74FVHGq+17zzT2Yb-deQ1WeP8UNZcakUs7Hq1LXUtg@mail.gmail.com> <20150501130948.GF68855@mx2.yitter.info>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:31:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hwLXw3TOGGksO=tWsZ87gCX-EKXtybOL6e5o3OfrQNkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114909a847f5d10515053e76
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/EOoTMAY9_NUjsL84P_ZtqYqQzCE>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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: Fri, 01 May 2015 13:32:54 -0000

Hi
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>;
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 07:25:10PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
> > Do I understand this to mean that IETF  wants to get it's RFP response to
> > ICG activated and operational before conclusion of the transition
> process?
>
> I don't think so.
>

Great. This is the response i expected and i would have been surprised if
otherwise. Based on above then it may be important to clarify the section
of the IAB chair's(your) statement below:

Understanding this consensus[*i.e the IANAPLAN*], the IETF leadership have
been negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in
our *annual
Service Level Agreement*.  After some iterations, we arrived at text that
we think captures the IETF consensus[*i.e the consensus achieved on
IANAPLAN* which has been submitted to ICG]

The interpretation of the statement above could imply that IETF wants to
make operational the proposal that came out of IANAPLAN. It is based on
that, that i think the response from ICANN below may not be entirely out of
order:

After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the IETF
consensus[*i.e the proposal from IANAPLAN*], but ICANN has informed us that
they are unable to *agree* to that text *right now*.

So generally speaking (and based on information available to me), it seem
this is a timing issue and there may just be need to clarify from ICANN if
they are fine with agreeing with the term post-NTIA.

As you have rightly stated, I believe the current agreement should-be/is
sufficient enough at ensuring IETF continue to get its usual IANA function
service.

Regards

>
> I just reviewed the minutes from IETF 91 at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan.  To
> me, it was plain that we were just planning to include items in our
> negotiation this year (I spent about 3 minutes looking for an email
> thread to that effect, too, in which I seem to recall having
> participated).  None of that negotiation entails that it needs to be
> completed before the ICG has proceeded.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A (as ever, speaking for myself)
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !