Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

I think the result is shaping up well, and the response should be sent.  
On the question of who signs it:  As I have stated elsewhere — I think 
it’s great to get the IETF’s input on the response, but I don’t 
see the IANAPLAN WG as having an operational position to commit the IETF 
on such matters as timeframes for implementation.

And if it’s not a WG matter, I don’t understand why the WG Chairs 
would sign it.

(That’s not a repudiation of content of message, that’s a question 
of role, IMO).

Leslie.

—

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 29 May 2015, at 11:49, Russ Housley wrote:

> Thanks for pulling all of the pieces together.  I t looks good to me.
>
> I think it should be signed by the IANAPLAN WG Chairs.  They were the 
> ones that received the letter.
>
> Russ
>
> P.S.  Should we put the letter and the response in the liaison system 
> to make them easy to find?
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> 
> wrote:
> Eliot:
>
>> I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not 
>> specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether 
>> through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we 
>> stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go 
>> into (SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).
>
> Ok.
>
> Trying to take this and Ted’s comments into account:
>
> “The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
> in place and implemented in preceding years.
>
> The remaining step is an updated agreement with
> ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
> outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:
>
> o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
>    is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
>    acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>
> o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
>    parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
>    operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
>    part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
>    out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
>    current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
>    [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
>    operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
>    a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
>    ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
>    minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
>    or other resources currently located at iana.org.
>
> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
> decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
> Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
> agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
> perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
> agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially
> complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination
> as a final step.
>
> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
> with other parts of the process may bring additional
> tasks that need to be executed either before or
> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
> the treatment of IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust
> has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if
> asked. We are awaiting to coordination on this
> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
> execution once the decision is made. From our
> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
> however.
>
> In addition, the names community has proposed the
> creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
> agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
> and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF
> ransition would take place as described above.  That is
> our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
> further action from the IETF, more work and community
> agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
> cannot be set until the scope is known.”
>
> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan