Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 May 2015 16:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 DB61A1B2B94 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CZJKS9Etu5Al for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17D301B2B3F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so128660383wic.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=93YU3wfMZ9lHJATHLNiAeh5UvGlT60Fy8o2LNsjwboE=; b=hv6Y+DZ7/TcmYX34GA9SSxdYfy4C3T1h4x5TAEDh37Uga6iBw0ipsz1M/ewRvwZHTq R5IY8B3Ub38X/fY8QwTw3eHahUDYGkAJy1nX324m1lDWc11lOpYOeD7OT0HkR4LO/VYK V7h2AC4ygyCsn45zMkXSvh/+Akr/Na8OOZgGA8UR0O/XpqSrPg/mudKvFNxW5l0wq7zN wAJ1/GVIcgAnWUkjc11qdC7jgO8qogBSv4a/M6PWS/WZ2pTdfhT4dpKRkLHdDwyG5EqH 1bhJtCZVcEZZbmEtDJvUK5NkYpKzgttXvoLLhJuiIrWniVR3Xvn76sIF4vbX19SYL2P9 Lf4w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.76.100 with SMTP id j4mr7775245wiw.10.1432829838857; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.91.133 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
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>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:17:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAA3w=V=QTJpSPJnGDJ4VGN4hmv-Kv7Xn7x_T8uLe-RZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7b56919d3c051726b1fb"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ZGSuNYAQQ-n7mFBHZe0iY8rDUvM>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, 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: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:17:24 -0000
I think the formulation below is fine; it's a little long, but that's likely okay here. Ted On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM, 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 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] Time frame inquiry Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Bob Hinden
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Bob Hinden
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- [Ianaplan] The seventh stakeholder [was: Time fra… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry Jefsey