[Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 11:57 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B061A8AB6 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vCCRgTcngSiK for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3B21A8ACE for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1EA106B0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02UC6JW_xFe4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (unknown []) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40D381036C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 +0100
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150430115751.GE65715@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/suL056OFf20KjHG0ZhJ5D7s_TFg>
Subject: [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 11:57:53 -0000

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