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

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>