Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5221B2C4E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N9g3hBxF5cb3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EA71A1BE3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id E052D106B1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pGBlcGvx56GH for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (unknown [IPv6:2601:18d:8600:22:45e:5be0:fc52:f4e2]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B19B8106B3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:04:36 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150528170435.GQ85071@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <D15A3C14-F268-4CF1-B942-BAE57B281C58@cooperw.in> <556D3AAA-1655-4785-9395-8F6CD0B73E44@vigilsec.com> <5F8F0771-C77B-4D90-811B-501A4EC79268@istaff.org> <893FE3E3-A2DD-40D8-B39F-1EB24DFE1806@vigilsec.com> <97267ED7-D8A2-4A64-AB74-07434190DD89@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBZq_U+CC5Jzv5T3pL7qasUHSfv-Gu8q4P36+phABXxzg@mail.gmail.com> <4AB120DC-AFB1-4915-B6C5-7417FB989878@piuha.net> <55669A78.3020309@cisco.com> <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <C8B9D0E8-C363-4618-8941-D0027B86EB7A@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/r-93DFai5HVlWhQBoiSAO5q6seM>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:42 -0000

I like this text.

A

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:15:55AM +0300, 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 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


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com