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

Bernard Aboba <> Fri, 01 May 2015 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851A41B2B91 for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJdxOcxrO6hT for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 11:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55F4B1AC44A for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 11:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so60305962wid.0 for <>; Fri, 01 May 2015 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=HTjKMVXrOeo/HV/jD7Ma3jW0zrCdo9CrzFDp0m4JmiI=; b=PsQsBaC0OOP/aIBXoMmSdryQI8y7WrVj8OWDbAAuA0yKL2po4SKE7fGZ41yeKlKKpT GejDSUtgkIZDOeIveMVaW8CrulG08eg5P6+6uAVOCJJSdU1UPeUYwIS5xFCoWAvegeXq MHTyeElIOYou/UsWt5OEc6kAMNXKJ7CIpddzDvzwlHszWqNLUSJ5ETMpAWrhTNE050sP xgIUg7Z5I5KT4jxAmvAWnmdr9YQzvDuNu80oUmCfYyfP196loAPb+ABbp7T2HHE3bDkS GiiPYL9cM/JiSTp4OmVEHzU5Uf2Vs3nangnZL4B5dEK2LqYS/U3wTOFfF5IpWvx9VzFq gvig==
X-Received: by with SMTP id my2mr16142429wic.78.1430505193583; Fri, 01 May 2015 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 1 May 2015 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Bernard Aboba <>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:32:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37c18e9bd2c051509712f
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Seun Ojedeji <>, Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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: Fri, 01 May 2015 18:33:28 -0000

John Klensin said:

"Still from the SLA point of view, ICANN appears to have said "we
cannot formally agree, in the SLA, to provisions you have
believed were in effect for years"."

[BA] Just to be clear, the MOU was not incorporated as an appendix into the
SLA that ICANN refused to sign, though of course the SLA is a supplemental
agreement, being supplemental to the MOU, so that there is an implicit
reference there.  So I don't think we can interpret ICANN's refusal to sign
as a repudiation of the MOU (or even an indication that they would not
agree to a similar Termination Clause at some point in the future).

I would encourage others to leave it to them too -- attacks of
speculation and amateur lawyering are rarely productive and tend
to suppress more useful discussions."

[BA] Similarly, I would not speculate about whether NTIA or members of
Congress did in fact evaluate the proposed SLA and render a judgement or
whether ICANN legal's interpretation of the NTIA-ICANN contract was valid,
since we have no information on the former and the latter is a legal issue.

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:41 AM, John C Klensin <>; wrote:

> Hmm.  I was a little concerned that your exchange with Andrew
> might deepen the confusion.  Let me try a different perspective
> with the understanding that I'm speaking for myself only and
> doing a certain amount of guessing -- I'm not enough part of
> "the leadership" to speak for them even if I wanted to.
> --On Friday, May 01, 2015 14:31 +0100 Seun Ojedeji
> <>; wrote:
> >> 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:
> >...
> > 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.
> There is, indeed, a timing issue with this and, IMO, most of it
> has very little to do with IANAPlan or the transition process.
> It helps me to think about what is going on as two separate
> activities and threads.  One is the regular, annual, process of
> the IAOC and IAB working with ICANN to update the IANA SLA,
> setting new targets and clarifying whatever needs to be
> clarified.  In part because that is mostly a contractual matter,
> the IETF community has rarely been actively aware of those
> discussions beyond the usual plenary reports (no particular
> secrets, just the IAOC and IAB doing their jobs so there is some
> hope of the rest of us being able to get technical/standards
> work done).  The other is the specific set of issues associated
> with NTIA-IANA transition planning and this WG.
> Now, ever since the annual SLA approach was adopted (and really
> going back to the March 2000 approval of the MOU included in RFC
> 2860), the IETF (and, as far as we know, ICANN) have been
> working based on the content of that document and some shared
> assumptions and interpretations of it.  For this year's version,
> the IETF sought to clarify those relationships and
> interpretations by incorporating some text into the SLA.  From
> the point of view of those SLA discussions, at least as I
> understand it, nothing has changed: we are just repeating
> existing agreements into the SLA.  The fact that the decision to
> clarify those points in the SLA to be sure of them arose from
> IANAPlan discussions is, from the SLA point of view, a
> coincidence: we could reasonably have included the same
> provisions in the SLA at any time (and, from my personal point
> of view, should have done so years ago).
> Still from the SLA point of view, ICANN appears to have said "we
> cannot formally agree, in the SLA, to provisions you have
> believed were in effect for years".   That does not make me very
> happy and, IMO, should not make anyone who has been depending on
> the MOU very happy.   Whether it is serious or not, and whether
> it changes the way we look at and interpret even the current
> SLA, is ultimately a contractual matter that I'm happy to leave
> to the IAB, IAOC, and the IAOC's legal advisors.  I would
> encourage others to leave it to them too -- attacks of
> speculation and amateur lawyering are rarely productive and tend
> to suppress more useful discussions.
> Now, if the IAOC were to conclude either that it was urgent to
> update the existing provisions and targets of the SLA or that
> questions about our assumptions require an SLA update, now, that
> would presumably be an issue with a schedule independent of any
> transition-related calendar.
> The transition and IANAPlan-related issues are a different
> matter with, as your comments suggest, a different schedule.
> As you also suggest, there is at least a potential for ICANN to
> agree to do something during the transition or post-transition
> that they don't feel able to do now.
>    john
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list