[AfrICANN-discuss] Tr : [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

Thu Nov 13 11:30:50 UTC 2014

Hi to allIf you are not on one of the mailing list where the IANA transition is discussed, see below one thread of discussion going on on the IETF mailing list. (Ianaplan at ietf.org, https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan).It's now that the foundation of the "new Internet house" is built, our stone must not be missed.Regards./Janvier Ngnoulaye-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----- Mail transféré -----
  De : Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
 À : Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>; Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> 
Cc : ianaplan at ietf.org 
 Envoyé le : Jeudi 13 novembre 2014 10h33
 Objet : Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

Dear Alissa,

Thank you for your efforts, but I'm afraid that I still cannot agree to the
text that  you propose below.  In order to explain why, I'd like to recall
the background.

This process was initiated by the NTIA requesting ICANN to propose a plan to
transition away from the NTIA's current role.  ICANN chartered the ICG to
prepare that plan, and in turn the ICG asked the IETF to prepare a proposal
regarding the protocol parameters part of the IANA function.

The IETF created this working group to prepare that proposal.  The charter
of this working group says "This working group is chartered solely with
respect to the planning
needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics related to
IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for future
consideration. However, the mechanisms required to address the removal of
the overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or
agreements. The WG will identify, but
not create, such required agreements."

In this context, a plan is a series of specific steps that are expected to
result in the desired outcome.  As indicated in the charter of this working
group, the plan might include a call for the creation of additional
documentation or agreements.

In this context, the desired outcome is a situation in which the IANA
functions are performed at least as well as they are today, and that
maintains security, stability, and resiliency.

As far as I can tell, many people in this group are of the view that the
current NTIA-ICANN IANA functions contract has no significant consequences
or effects with respect to the protocol parameters part of the IANA
functions, and that it would be difficult, and even counter-productive, to
try to develop a detailed contigency plan (and associated contracts or
whatever) to deal with various scenarios that might arise after the current
contract ends.  As I understand it, the view is that appropriate steps can,
and will be taken, in response to whatever situation may arise in the
future.  Any disruptions that might arise would not be significant and it is
not appropriate to try to foresee them and minimize them at this time, much
less to call for negotiation of new contracts.

The text that you propose below is consistent with that view, but it is not
a plan: expressing a preference for something specifies a goal, not a series
of steps to meet the goal.  Similarly, stating an expectation is not a plan.

Further, in my opinion, the text in question is not a proper response to
what was requested in the RFP.

The text in question appears in the section of the RPF that says:

"If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in
Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be
provided here."

So it seems to me that an appropriate text would be some version of what
I've outlined above, namely that there does not appear to be a need to
change anything at this time, but that the IETF will take appropriate steps
in the future, if needed and as the case may be.

Needless to say, I don't agree with that.

But I think that it would be better if the response to the ICG replied more
explicitly to what the ICG requested.

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: jeudi, 13. novembre 2014 04:36
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: ianaplan at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

Ok. Sharing updated text reflecting edits suggested by Ted, Seun, and Eliot:

=== NEW ===
IETF Response:

No major changes are required. Over the years since the creation of ICANN,
the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of agreements,
policies, and oversight mechanisms that covers what is needed.

IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function
day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more.  The IETF
community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with ICANN. RFC
2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community very well.  RFC 6220
has laid out an appropriate service description and requirements.

To address issues relating to intellectual property rights, it is the
preference of the IETF community that the appropriate parties, both inside
and outside the IETF, make clear that data in the protocol parameters
registries is in the public domain.

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.

On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:

Hi Alissa,

Please see below:

On 11/12/14, 4:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:

It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters
registries will be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is
the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the 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 a new operator, should the
need arise.

The first sentence of the paragraph refers to a potential future transition
from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). In the second sentence, when you say
“as part of the transition,” were you referring to the NTIA transition? Or
did you mean something like “in advance of such a transition” in the second
sentence?

Indeed I meant "as part of the NTIA transition".  That is- let's have the
conversation now, on good terms, with a view towards what is best for the
Internet.  Thanks for asking for the clarification.

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20141113/c1bf5ee4/attachment-0001.htm