Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Hi Leslie,
On 02/06/2015 01:39, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
> 
> I think the result is shaping up well, and the response should be sent.  On the question of who signs it:  As I have stated
> elsewhere — I think it’s great to get the IETF’s input on the response, but I don’t see the IANAPLAN WG as having an operational
> position to commit the IETF on such matters as timeframes for implementation.
> 
> And if it’s not a WG matter, I don’t understand why the WG Chairs would sign it.

Concur. If the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, the IAOC Chair and the Trust Chair
would co-sign it, we'd be in good shape.

   Brian

> 
> (That’s not a repudiation of content of message, that’s a question of role, IMO).
> 
> Leslie.
> 
> —
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 29 May 2015, at 11:49, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for pulling all of the pieces together.  I t looks good to me.
>>
>> I think it should be signed by the IANAPLAN WG Chairs.  They were the ones that received the letter.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> P.S.  Should we put the letter and the response in the liaison system to make them easy to find?
>>
>>
>> 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 mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan