Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Russ Housley <> Wed, 27 May 2015 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845461A88DC for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 10:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MNYgDlMM9PTv for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 10:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25C71A88D1 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 10:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35CD9A404B for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DOWZTrUTH8NS for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:33:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA759A4029 for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 13:33:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-83--825719203
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:33:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:34:26 -0000

The plan calls for two expectations to be met as part of the transition.  Those expectations are the following:

   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 intent is to add language to the SLA to fulfill both of these expectations.

The IETF is ready to sign the updated SLA now, but we have been told that ICANN cannot do so until they get explicit permission as part of implementing the transition.  So, from our side, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "zero".

However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know".


On May 27, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling <> that included the following text:
> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.”
> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate.
> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Jari Arkko and Alissa Cooper) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed