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

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Fri, 01 May 2015 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 6C6791A8AA7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 09:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UQwTYCLeuZ8l for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2015 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.syr.edu (smtp1.syr.edu [128.230.18.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AC941A8935 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2015 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-03.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.133]) by smtp1.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t41GOmVZ032728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 May 2015 12:24:48 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:24:47 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Fri, 1 May 2015 12:24:29 -0400
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf@jck.com>, "'Andrew Sullivan'" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
Thread-Index: AQHQgzzvYS56VOVIhUiZVLkAMznj2J1mIo8AgAE6OACAAAYvAIAAJBcA///EbeA=
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:24:29 +0000
Message-ID: <29f03c4711dd4817bf57c19f5006d548@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info> <CAD_dc6iu74FVHGq+17zzT2Yb-deQ1WeP8UNZcakUs7Hq1LXUtg@mail.gmail.com> <20150501130948.GF68855@mx2.yitter.info> <CAD_dc6hwLXw3TOGGksO=tWsZ87gCX-EKXtybOL6e5o3OfrQNkQ@mail.gmail.com> <94839648711C2BC9EBE94724@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <94839648711C2BC9EBE94724@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.230.182.126]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-05-01_06:2015-05-01,2015-05-01,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1505010205
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Vrh9pKcX7K4byB4R-2G4hYCKlg0>
Cc: "'ianaplan@ietf.org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 01 May 2015 16:24:52 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Still from the SLA point of view, ICANN appears to have said "we
> cannot formally agree, in the SLA, to provisions you have
> believed were in effect for years".   That does not make me very
> happy and, IMO, should not make anyone who has been depending
> on the MOU very happy.  

This was what raised concern in my mind, too. And this came shortly after the news about ICANN legal's reaction to the CRISP team proposal.  The conjunction of those two events works against (but does not definitively refute) interpreting the problems associated with routine renewal of the supplement SLA as something ICANN would like to do but can't until the transition takes place. Addressing Andrew, I will continue to be mildly "worked up" - on alert would be a better term - until ICANN staff is able to specifically identify the legal issue the new text raises under its existing contract with NTIA.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html