Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,
At 00:32 30-08-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>I have posted a -00 draft that seeks to respond to the most current 
>version of the RFP I could get my hands on.  Would you kindly 
>provide some thoughts about it?  I am most particularly concerned 
>about substance at the moment.  The sorts of things I'm looking for are these:
>Is the text in the "IETF Response" accurate and in fact responsive 
>to the question?
>Is there anything missing?
>Is there anything that does not parse well?  Did you think "Huh??" 
>when you read a sentence?
>My intent is to have a second version out prior to the cutoff for 
>the Honolulu meeting as a candidate for the IANAPLAN working group 
>to adopt, assuming the working group is chartered.

   "The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is
    to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]."

The IETF cannot be a MIB module. :-)

Quoting from the draft:

   "The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the Internet
    Engineering Task Force (IETF)."

The above is inconsistent with a stated IETF position.

   "1.  The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and
       continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical
       community."

What is the "Internet technical community"?

   "The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameter registries for
    this purpose."

The above is not aligned with the stated position of the IETF.

Quoting two parts of the responses out of context:

   "It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to
    participate, including anyone from ICANN or the RIRs, and many people
    from those organizations regularly do."

   "In-person attendance is not required for participation, and many
    people participate in email discussions that have never attended
    an IETF meeting."

I scanned the ietf@ mailing list archives and I did not find anyone 
from ICANN or the RIRs participating on that mailing list.

   "Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction are
    immaterial."

Why are questions of jurisdictions immaterial?

   "Any modifications to the protocol parameter registry function
    should be made using the IETF process"

The above is incorrect.

The IETF responses are not well-formulated in my opinion.  There 
isn't any reference to the IANA Functions contract.

As this topic has been mentioned I'll comment.  From 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en

   "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
    ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
    systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable
    and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.  In
    particular, ICANN:

    1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique
     identifiers for the Internet, which are

       "c. Protocol port and parameter numbers."

ICANN may have to adjust its bylaws if RFC 6220 is to be followed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy