[Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 24 September 2015 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F3C1B2EE0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0KGXg8AHZXXI for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9484E1B2EDB for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AC220B83 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:02:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=bN1PKGgXZEieAHmttJ6vhjTYdeE =; b=Pvd5UFRYgEbjP1paXXT+ppyGsybKHA5zfQeo0UKppVLMaolfHo8kWIt4MFr qyeK87urP5kQk15nDBv8rfFxt+cam4xpetBL1WuxDFRpfNAP3bPwrdaDS4zO5EfE 33dP8xZehvULP/HIYtweE0PPH/aANWgqkQGylqWsjcObzYi0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=bN 1PKGgXZEieAHmttJ6vhjTYdeE=; b=U/5LTCKvDIGlDUxFPLSe3p/I+Xb50YjhPO Kp86nNZiK3kZAToZA39SZYgUsRrpcjpJjcGQHMHDoE/bqjR8EDIMyI0yAwWwmpON 9UqHdbqm7aC7F/dTNatxpZPxGR7aHhcNacXYRjDIE/lSTZ26eikeBh2141C7uO2C PtU0IVeQo=
X-Sasl-enc: im17oXveVbiDqx1R/eP6SQYN/dpfSEmC/TEbOg6ma6FA 1443132150
Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-62.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-20-62.cisco.com []) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 66BB9C00013 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_13D89C44-E02E-44D7-9DBD-4BB6393180F7"
Message-Id: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:02:29 -0700
To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/UlmrhLJk05fA6LtnhD1V9Sc41Hg>
Subject: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:02:33 -0000


Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a question for the protocol parameters community. We are requesting a response to this question ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the protocol parameters community requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time.

The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the protocol parameters community may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time.

The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the protocol parameters operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.

Please let us know if the question requires clarification.


Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG