Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 01 May 2015 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B661ACDBD for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 13:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aV8sHM76jWOk for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 956951A017F for <>; Fri, 1 May 2015 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbqd1 with SMTP id qd1so102239449pdb.2 for <>; Fri, 01 May 2015 13:40:04 -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=z9blIGRADWiueDv4tIl+wZ86k2OtidFKETEhIXdBviI=; b=sU7LD3QSvTCv1fFcKLoHgZFf76/AhxaCNVNZLq22yfloJlmuBXhulfUtg7ooT1e0KL pSXzY1zVGFHpyldrgz1b9KaIZYct1yBK3FvD+w3GPqhGvFDwKou4Z9HkjufiN+ct4hAq sn/kwE+v+t0BW7+lbagU0wVNQaZ5YgvBvFIB8nfJd2NpBwzvv8sPQAI+qILJvVDKLaSk vlVjkrRRyjI3FtcbafTPyJ9MvBc+C1QDxHdF+IAVLWrI03XKNz9CL496G6TRDfe/Aw2l EWA3dsNbpb+jpSG5U3s0I8h9YZRROz2R2NYKaHOHyYOv/lOxCzwqFedcE1bgKKwocpSy VbXA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k4mr21104501pdp.61.1430512804304; Fri, 01 May 2015 13:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6670:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6670:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id fo5sm2474163pbb.41.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 May 2015 13:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 08:40:05 +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/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <>, John C Klensin <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Seun Ojedeji <>, Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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: Fri, 01 May 2015 20:40:05 -0000

On 02/05/2015 06:32, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA] Just to be clear, the MOU was not incorporated as an appendix into the
> SLA that ICANN refused to sign, though of course the SLA is a supplemental
> agreement, being supplemental to the MOU, so that there is an implicit
> reference there.  So I don't think we can interpret ICANN's refusal to sign
> as a repudiation of the MOU (or even an indication that they would not
> agree to a similar Termination Clause at some point in the future).

Not only that. No doubt the IETF would respect the 6 months notice if it ever
came to that point, but termination is a unilateral action, and if the IETF
ever wanted to terminate, I'm sure we'd just do it and take our registries
elsewhere. That's why the clause was put there in the first place.

IMHO, being offered an alternative agreement that did not contain a
satisfactory termination clause would clearly be a valid reason to terminate.