Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal

Eliot Lear <> Sun, 09 August 2015 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADF11B2C1E for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.612
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 ug2f9V5oTbay for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1262F1B2BD8 for <>; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 05:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3372; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439124119; x=1440333719; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=lgU+BO6Q6QIiB8sfTfE1QUJi5N78MD82tEJOrb/S71c=; b=le4j7ZZ9y1QSciCJirXAwzW3Y/UgcjygfJ7bUFcRDS6AMpC+vOtGditn /YSiT1Hk4faV1pfDx1Ygef3tHfiwTx/LqfgxHzTly/Fgnff1vxFPSXzqm FL4+1+iMAB2T91milGaiq+vXY4vgqvcm3P3m7KXkNuSwhaS6TQCcgQwxG s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,639,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="597826184"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Aug 2015 12:41:57 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t79Cfubf026563; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:41:56 GMT
To: Jari Arkko <>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
References: <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:41:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CSoGGn0LduKsuMg24rl1QjUnN5g1blbfw"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 12:42:01 -0000


I support the draft ICG proposal going forward with a caveat.  The IETF
stated two points that are desired as part of the transition.  You
reiterated this in your June email to the ICG.  The ICG correctly calls
out these points in the summary, but then does not list them in the
transition section.  That may be entirely correct, or it may be an
oversight, depending on whether they have already been addressed.

So that we know what we're talking about, you wrote in June the following:

> 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 of 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.

If this agreement is in place, great.  That should be stated.  If the
agreement is not yet in place, then that should be stated in the
transition section (Section V) of the ICG summary.