Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Fri, 29 May 2015 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rpelletier@isoc.org>
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 99A781A1B91 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uoy1QG7xfkWB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0097.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723A31A00E0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2015 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rpelletier@isoc.org;
Received: from [192.168.0.19] (72.237.59.193) by CY1PR0601MB1562.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.163.232.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.172.22; 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 <rpelletier@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:06:04 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8FC45984-191E-4E96-B834-1817FCA8B1EA@isoc.org>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DM2PR11CA0041.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (25.160.91.51) To CY1PR0601MB1562.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (25.163.232.140)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0601MB1562;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <CY1PR0601MB1562C12EE1F17CA50F2BC0FAB0C90@CY1PR0601MB1562.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
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:[192.168.0.19]; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: isoc.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
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: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Y8bdfcL2TATKT7pUfxsX2RrCu9c>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
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, 29 May 2015 16:06:06 -0000

Jari,

minor edits

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

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

Ray

> 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