Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 27 May 2015 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA2D1A006D for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXdOeBIQspWO for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D228E1A896E for <>; Wed, 27 May 2015 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=7467; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432749883; x=1433959483; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=xA3LryFMVpiljIYzDfypRlztrq9ZE6bxlWhUoTmuOi4=; b=Ktv1YnJG8FByNppiB4qfPCOkXtG/YBEJ1XVajR3AKJ3gFWxBNKw8FD9h 1/aQh4cC7SwkOBShuVECGmZwhGuT5n1A8cVJuSED5+py7vKZpD8QTfcRZ gLu5sGgBHXy97vHIrzRl7WfjbZccKcPCZv+ZoOTKu5WFPGICekuMGsqfV w=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,506,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="494388971"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 May 2015 18:04:42 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4RI4fC2029055; Wed, 27 May 2015 18:04:41 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:04:41 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <>,
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Bjv4X6KVQoFbFw7ALSXd8urUP6cWoKr8O"
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: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:04:47 -0000


I agree with all that you write, modulo one point:

On 5/27/15 7:33 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> The plan calls for two expectations to be met as part of the
> transition.  Those expectations are the following:
>    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 intent is to add language to the SLA to fulfill both of these
> expectations.
> The IETF is ready to sign the updated SLA now, but we have been told
> that ICANN cannot do so until they get explicit permission as part of
> implementing the transition.  So, from our side, the answer to the
> question from the ICG leadership is "zero".

We expect the CWG proposal to be updated.  I presume that the IAB and
perhaps this group may wish to comment on the revised proposal, and
specifically how the PTI relates to us, *if at all*.  If there is no
impact, then of course, there will be no additional time required.
> However, we also do not believe that we have accomplished a transition
> until that updated SLA is signed.  We have no way to know when ICANN
> will get the needed permission.  So, from that perspective, the answer
> to the question from the ICG leadership is "we do not know".