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
>
>