[Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch proposal for a charter
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 20 July 2014 18:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 5D8551B2969 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 ti5VXLIyB0At for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 694581B294C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (dhcp-bc45.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.188.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C8FD8A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:36:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:36:10 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140720183610.GD16143@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20140717095850.GA10757@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140717095850.GA10757@mx1.yitter.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/M5maITHwQJhT9hbMdqfSgDVDRSE
Subject: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch proposal for a charter
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: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:36:15 -0000
Dear colleagues, On the basis of the discussion I've seen on list, I've updated the charter. Note that I have generally preferred the path, suggested by many, of minimising rather than including changes. Major changes include adopting Leslie's suggested text; a (rather awkwardly written -- suggestions welcome) paragraph noting that the WG can't just come to consensus on contract terms; and a change of the complete proposal milestone to move it back into January, on the grounds that this is all supposed to be trivial so moving stuff earlier would be good, and gives others more time to respond. Best regards, A Scratch proposal: Charter for IANAPLAN WG version 2014-07-20a Area: General Responsible AD: Jari Arkko Chairs: TBD Background ========== The IETF maintains parameters for protocols it defines in registries. These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" section in many RFCs. For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of the existing well-documented practices. Tasks ===== The WG will review, comment on, evaluate, and if need be prepare text for a proposal about protocol parameters registries. It will begin with the following documents: - RFC 2850 (especially section 2(d)) - RFC 2860 - RFC 6220 - IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) - IETF-ICANN Supplemental Agreement Dec 2007 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN_Supplemental_Agreement.pdf) - IETF-ICANN Supplemental Agreement March 2008 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-IANA_%20MoU_Supplemental_Agreement_2008.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement March 2009 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ICANN-IETF-SLA-2009-Executed.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement 2010 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ICANN-IETF-SLA-2010-Executed.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement 2011 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ICANN-IETF-Agreement-2011-Executed.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement 2012 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ICANN-IETF-Agreement-2012-Executed.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement 2013 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2013-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreement 2014 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) It may consider, but is not bound to use, draft-kolkman-iana-framework-00. It is likely that RFC 3777 and its updates are also implicated. This work is chartered exclusively to propose alterations that are needed in order to support the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions. Other possible improvements will be set aside for future consideration. The WG will also review, comment on, and evaluate proposals from other communities about the NTIA transition, to the extent that those proposals impinge on the protocol parameters registries. The results of any WG consensus on protocol parameters registries will, of necessity, be input but not necessarily firm restrictions on any contractual terms that are ultimately adopted by the IAB and any future IANA functions provider, or contractual terms ultimately adopted by the IAOC and any future IANA functions provider. Statements of principle and desired outcomes are more important items to be delivered by the working group than are detailed terms for future agreements. Milestones ========== January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed Sept 2015 -- close -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Larry Masinter
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Larry Masinter
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Leslie Daigle (TCE)
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] scratch proposal for a charter Suzanne Woolf
- [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch proposa… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Larry Masinter
- Re: [Ianaplan] update to proposal Re: scratch pro… Eric Burger