Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 01 June 2015 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697E31B2FEF for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 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, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynpe9-igQkCu for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B04C1B2CA7 for <>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbki1 with SMTP id ki1so115653065pdb.1 for <>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=F15JaLRYuTZ0hFyuTaN1+ven7NhMQcFiNu5G5NY44b0=; b=evyqbRqamJVhe5VKcyTiGzFruZWRU5bW+0aCX1Yuwv9chX1MyHdsXgMxiCYCP7C4dW Mk10pkIS/1InGj5Al3y8yaWd/KVqFtyuLxFWy2LgkvSccDGIUAvWidlgZXdrJlKswmxW V1Eo/p3ypiLgXbwGf46e2gjLk2r/9pxcmSwrmbYxX6OyThWjwTrHyUvxr7FDl9PwCQPv ZZFEI9hS5H2rSxWy4go2zHxHviphA6xJ+gldbQAGgOPdjQr1x/oO5//P5uTEeNyeMSSH dO3iR0of+ud9VDGuhu8FZlOdUEIiEcc5aM6HYGDj1QxQvpfjjBjfmuQhGvpeFYtFK7wU T9ig==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a16mr6114952pbu.138.1433190181057; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5b56:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5b56:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id ms7sm15424674pdb.11.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 13:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:22:55 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <>, Russ Housley <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:23:03 -0000

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.


> (That’s not a repudiation of content of message, that’s a question of role, IMO).
> Leslie.
> —
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 <> 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
>> 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 mailing list