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

JFC Morfin <> Fri, 01 May 2015 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422DB1B2DCC for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.735
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_19=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dzzp3_Z39wEZ for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA061B2DCB for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:3784 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1YoGDo-0007ne-7z; Fri, 01 May 2015 12:03:37 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 21:03:29 +0200
To: Seun Ojedeji <>, Andrew Sullivan <>
From: JFC Morfin <>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6iu74FVHGq+17zzT2Yb-deQ1WeP8UNZcakUs7Hq1LXUtg@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_3637412==.ALT"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
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 19:04:05 -0000

>At 20:25 30/04/2015, 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?

The IETF has stated its position on 20150108: "The NTIA must then 
consider and approve the proposal. Finally, it must be 
implemented...the IETF leadership is committed to ensuring a good 
outcome for the Internet."

>On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
><<>> wrote:
>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],

Under appeal.

>the IETF leadership have been negotiating with ICANN to include text 
>to satisfy these points in our annual Service Level Agreement.

Not concerned by the IANAPLAN since ICANN is still under NTIA 
contract, which may still last for three years.

>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]

Cannot have been "submitted", as it is not an RFC and is under the 
appeal process.

>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],

There is no IETF consensus as yet. It is still subject to the IAB and 
possibly ISOC response to the relevant RFC 2026 appeal(s).

>but ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text 
>right now.

This seems reasonable since this text does not formally exist right 
now, and the appeal implies either an IAB real control, or a 
practical accountability to a cross RFC 6852 global-community 
multi/omnistakeholderist governance and control under discussion/investigation.

>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.

This may be the case in the context of Jari's 20150108 commitment 
that a part of the Internet Community does not accept.
As a result, there are 36 formal questions from the Relationnels 
Libres global community that the IESG was unable to answer. This is 
something the IAB may still do.


The problem is that the ICANNET is technically bugged.

A BUG (in this case, the ICANN/NTIA/FCC - seemingly IETF supported - 
"Being Unilaterally Global" bug), whatever the number of people being 
affected and possibly happy with it, is still a bug. And some will 
want a patch. A patch is a patch, but there may be many and 
non-compatible patches.

Today, the alternative sources of patches are: the Global I*Community 
and the rest of the world. The appeal process gives the possibility 
to the Global I*Community to consider the situation and propose its 
own patch. If this patch was acceptable to the multitude as being 
innovatively intelligent and distributed network oriented, it might 
avoid a disarray of multiple competitive patches, what might place 
the internet in a significant jeopardy everyone, including us, will 
try to survive with patches to the multi-patch problem.

This will be up to Andrew, and possibly to Bob Hinden, to make a 
responsible decision.

In focussing questions we hope reducing the number of "MYCANN 
Plugs-in" to "Relationnels Libres" and a few countries and/or 
corps/fundations. Right now the French "Super-Patriot-Act" debate, in 
TIPP/ACTA context, helps us refining our own project toward a 
resillient, protected VGN, fringe to fringe lab test project.


>>I just reviewed the minutes from IETF 91 at
>>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