Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5221B2C4E for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N9g3hBxF5cb3 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09EA71A1BE3 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E052D106B1 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pGBlcGvx56GH for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2601:18d:8600:22:45e:5be0:fc52:f4e2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B19B8106B3 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:04:36 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:04:42 -0000

I like this text.


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
> 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

Andrew Sullivan