Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 10 August 2015 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 E10F11B314A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 YSoDN2Pla9GI for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (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 82C301B3148 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so24833161pdb.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=19GFjg6fLXs4smLlTVR9YD1WvffVrTaHK6+l3vOQND8=; b=jwIPVj3xM382KgGZYHEDqF9EvHga/+4MPAgpJh9oRdZpNRuw53u1HDveCg/hYPYEWn ZP3Sz0/4XnSpb+c1ZvuPnQsGoWWCCjFpjVFznEZpXabBZOtRl00RzuXgnzvgrgbVmmNL 0TQpr2sjYV0uoX+3IonKFtMFR6abkrDiwNLBXcAz/ZfBrga3cbozaB6gzP6nIEAUnZC9 iDLhHdImVHXO23jGiZNo77Uv5oZCsP6YIQvt6eM1Q8cn/VbQHWPQppwF8QincPQb7C5J i73Fn6wtK831Lm0LPNlhvCrrrzCxfrac+MY8b27IljaoZThMi60r/D8szG729Ow84PoF +DpQ==
X-Received: by 10.70.49.104 with SMTP id t8mr3777767pdn.13.1439166984127; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.4.51] ([168.126.248.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pd10sm17708178pdb.66.2015.08.09.17.36.21 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55C7F1FF.9020002@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:36:15 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
References: <7DAC25D2-2321-4918-806C-A598C97F562C@piuha.net> <55C74A93.2090300@cisco.com> <F9E7BCC9-9D38-4B40-9A30-DF22E7210AFC@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F9E7BCC9-9D38-4B40-9A30-DF22E7210AFC@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/PeJKx5qrVJ52JW2YfQPoQ3YVMA4>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:36:26 -0000

On 10/08/2015 03:11, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2015, at 5:41 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this agreement is in place, great.  That should be stated.  If the
>> agreement is not yet in place, then that should be stated in the
>> transition section (Section V) of the ICG summary.
> 
> [BA] The ICG proposal includes requirements for agreements. Compared to an actual agreement this is akin to the sound of one hand clapping.
> 
> Due to legal concerns relating to current NTIA-ICANN contract limitations, agreements cannot be signed at this time.  We do not even really know when discussions will be able to resume, what additional concerns might arise when they do, or even whether the requirements can be met once all the obstacles to discussion are removed.

This was of course an issue when the current IETF/ICANN MoU was developed
in 1999/2000, and the reason why it wasn't signed and ratified until
March 2000. Since it *was* signed and ratified and is still in force, I'm
not too worried about the IETF's basic position being "We have what we need."
The issues that Eliot raised are valid and should probably be reinforced
as a comment on the ICG proposal, however.

    Brian