Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

"Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <> Mon, 01 June 2015 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701B51ACDDD for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.557
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UvxuukYbNKWK for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950D91ACDDA for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E21B8086; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;; bh=G F2OrM9eGxWLL3yMlNxMsDHG/OI=; b=V8Wl7DI/F5LHOt1ZXZGxqsU2btd95YBtG ObokJhAVpQhTEmVuiA7OJZM6WXIMwjU9/67YWMpYcxWOQlM8WFrAYB0ES0WzIKNv saHFm5OKO5oTYxivR/JJb6ukoOC9QpOReh2CCMo0NgMSsQj4wfywQP4L78T/vCnG vhLWHDcUOQ=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43290B8095; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <>
To: "Russ Housley" <>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:39:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:39:07 -0000

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 Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
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 <> 
> 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
> 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