Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Ray Pelletier <> Fri, 29 May 2015 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A781A1B91 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uoy1QG7xfkWB for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723A31A00E0 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is );
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 29 May 2015 16:06:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Ray Pelletier <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:06:04 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1562;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(520003)(3002001); SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1562; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1562;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 059185FE08
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6049001)(6009001)(24454002)(199003)(51704005)(189002)(377454003)(50986999)(64706001)(19580405001)(50466002)(19580395003)(77096005)(561944003)(23676002)(105586002)(66066001)(81156007)(83716003)(42186005)(101416001)(15975445007)(46102003)(2950100001)(76176999)(77156002)(68736005)(62966003)(5001860100001)(40100003)(36756003)(5001830100001)(106356001)(33656002)(47776003)(117156001)(122386002)(87976001)(82746002)(97736004)(189998001)(50226001)(57306001)(92566002)(5001920100001)(110136002)(93886004)(5001960100002)(4001540100001)(86362001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1562; H:[]; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2015 16:06:01.5395 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0601MB1562
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>, Ted Hardie <>, Eliot Lear <>
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: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:06:06 -0000


minor edits

> On May 28, 2015, at 1:15 AM, 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

s/to coordination/to coordinate

> 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

s/ IETF ransition/IETF transition


> 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