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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 62A521AD182 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PkZygufkWiDv for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22b.google.com (mail-qc0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34D11AD0D6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcyk17 with SMTP id k17so33361617qcy.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CfP+1GBUv2dwk99zwShm31G0byFBl4xl27RulVLpU7g=; b=m03j941y1yg+W2JrSsO0h/eQQAVXOqZWTlf5JjMvJjvM/qMwRxtM9DIZdEVapACVJN zRtTu+dNpQsYF6JkBQUotBoe6aEMKQojCMOiR67q6aX0zOpYU2gWhevHLhFLNPUYKDYy lAL4vXDS1JV2O8wKWiN0IU+lQjVjXNZK83DDzgDdaD41qQemuOzEyqAyAZKO/62q7g3U WdkdgoF9orVTXpNvGwky4kJKTwFGhNqTVZcR91TnD+h71LQuA7Gaai74D853v0TAoYKt hMnMiU0hM5p9h3oAY3qWtMw8VgZr0WxM+KnT9vQl6ppswMT5FhU/r2Mnln9HgkiY5Ruj 4HHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.195.73 with SMTP id q70mr6439555qha.70.1430418312838; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.157.20 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.157.20 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:25:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iu74FVHGq+17zzT2Yb-deQ1WeP8UNZcakUs7Hq1LXUtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142688c6ac3bb0514f5373e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/sUpcUJdamsW-60O7IjZh-6Ebj_A>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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, 30 Apr 2015 18:25:16 -0000

Hi,

Do I understand this to mean that IETF  wants to get it's RFP response to
ICG activated and operational before conclusion of the transition process?

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Apr 2015 12:58, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> This is an update to the community on the current discussion between
> the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement.
> Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental
> agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that
> any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed.
>
> As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship
> Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN
> working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with
> IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF.  That
> consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was
> transmitted to the ICG.  In that document the community sought to have
> some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan:
>
>   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.
>
> Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been
> negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our
> annual Service Level Agreement.  After some iterations, we arrived at
> text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed
> us that they are unable to agree to that text right now.  ICANN told
> us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly
> put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA.
>
> It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already
> part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating
> details of that existing agreement.  We expect that as we continue
> towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA
> processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping
> with IETF consensus.
>
> We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and
> next steps, as well as developments in other operational
> communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and
> the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet.  The IETF has
> stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement.  That
> strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not
> waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible
> stewardship of the protocol parameters registries.
>
> We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's
> current level of performance.  The existing supplemental agreement,
> from last year, continues until it is replaced.
>
> We welcome your thoughts about this situation.  We will continue to
> use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jari Arkko
> IETF Chair
>
> Tobias Gondrom
> IAOC Chair
>
> Andrew Sullivan
> IAB Chair
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>