<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542" class="" style="">Hi to all</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542" class="" style="">If 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. <span style="font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40702">(Ianaplan@ietf.org, https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan).</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542" class="" style="">It's now that the foundation of the "new Internet house" is built, our stone must not be missed.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542" class="" style="">Regards.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542"></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40542" class="" style="">/Janvier Ngnoulaye</div>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40523"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40522"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40533"> ----- Mail transféré -----<br> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">De :</span></b> Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">À :</span></b> Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>; Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc :</span></b> ianaplan@ietf.org <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Envoyé le :</span></b> Jeudi 13 novembre 2014 10h33<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Objet :</span></b> Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1415804787427_40521"><br>Dear Alissa,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Thank you for your efforts, but I'm afraid that I still cannot agree to the<br clear="none">text that you propose below. In order to explain why, I'd like to recall<br clear="none">the background.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">This process was initiated by the NTIA requesting ICANN to propose a plan to<br clear="none">transition away from the NTIA's current role. ICANN chartered the ICG to<br clear="none">prepare that plan, and in turn the ICG asked the IETF to prepare a proposal<br clear="none">regarding the protocol parameters part of the IANA function.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The IETF created this working group to prepare that proposal. The charter<br clear="none">of this working group says "This working group is chartered solely with<br clear="none">respect to the planning<br clear="none">needed for the transition, and is not meant to cover other topics related to<br clear="none">IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for future<br clear="none">consideration. However, the mechanisms required to address the removal of<br clear="none">the overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or<br clear="none">agreements. The WG will identify, but<br clear="none">not create, such required agreements."<br clear="none"><br clear="none">In this context, a plan is a series of specific steps that are expected to<br clear="none">result in the desired outcome. As indicated in the charter of this working<br clear="none">group, the plan might include a call for the creation of additional<br clear="none">documentation or agreements.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">In this context, the desired outcome is a situation in which the IANA<br clear="none">functions are performed at least as well as they are today, and that<br clear="none">maintains security, stability, and resiliency.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">As far as I can tell, many people in this group are of the view that the<br clear="none">current NTIA-ICANN IANA functions contract has no significant consequences<br clear="none">or effects with respect to the protocol parameters part of the IANA<br clear="none">functions, and that it would be difficult, and even counter-productive, to<br clear="none">try to develop a detailed contigency plan (and associated contracts or<br clear="none">whatever) to deal with various scenarios that might arise after the current<br clear="none">contract ends. As I understand it, the view is that appropriate steps can,<br clear="none">and will be taken, in response to whatever situation may arise in the<br clear="none">future. Any disruptions that might arise would not be significant and it is<br clear="none">not appropriate to try to foresee them and minimize them at this time, much<br clear="none">less to call for negotiation of new contracts.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The text that you propose below is consistent with that view, but it is not<br clear="none">a plan: expressing a preference for something specifies a goal, not a series<br clear="none">of steps to meet the goal. Similarly, stating an expectation is not a plan.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Further, in my opinion, the text in question is not a proper response to<br clear="none">what was requested in the RFP.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The text in question appears in the section of the RPF that says:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">"If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in<br clear="none">Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be<br clear="none">provided here."<br clear="none"><br clear="none">So it seems to me that an appropriate text would be some version of what<br clear="none">I've outlined above, namely that there does not appear to be a need to<br clear="none">change anything at this time, but that the IETF will take appropriate steps<br clear="none">in the future, if needed and as the case may be.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Needless to say, I don't agree with that.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">But I think that it would be better if the response to the ICG replied more<br clear="none">explicitly to what the ICG requested.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Best,<br clear="none">Richard<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yqt6273583771" id="yqtfd07519"><br clear="none">-----Original Message-----<br clear="none">From: Ianaplan [mailto:<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org" href="mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org">ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org</a>]On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper<br clear="none">Sent: jeudi, 13. novembre 2014 04:36<br clear="none">To: Eliot Lear<br clear="none">Cc: <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org" href="mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org">ianaplan@ietf.org</a><br clear="none">Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Ok. Sharing updated text reflecting edits suggested by Ted, Seun, and Eliot:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">=== NEW ===<br clear="none">IETF Response:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">No major changes are required. Over the years since the creation of ICANN,<br clear="none">the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of agreements,<br clear="none">policies, and oversight mechanisms that covers what is needed.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function<br clear="none">day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The IETF<br clear="none">community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with ICANN. RFC<br clear="none">2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community very well. RFC 6220<br clear="none">has laid out an appropriate service description and requirements.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">To address issues relating to intellectual property rights, it is the<br clear="none">preference of the IETF community that the appropriate parties, both inside<br clear="none">and outside the IETF, make clear that data in the protocol parameters<br clear="none">registries is in the public domain.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters<br clear="none">registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is<br clear="none">the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition,<br clear="none">ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under<br clear="none">C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the<br clear="none">NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent<br clear="none">operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a<br clear="none">transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF,<br clear="none">and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the<br clear="none">use the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located<br clear="none">at iana.org.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Eliot Lear <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:lear@cisco.com" href="mailto:lear@cisco.com">lear@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Hi Alissa,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Please see below:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">On 11/12/14, 4:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters<br clear="none">registries will be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is<br clear="none">the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the transition, ICANN<br clear="none">acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3<br clear="none">and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA<br clear="none">[NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to a new operator, should the<br clear="none">need arise.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">The first sentence of the paragraph refers to a potential future transition<br clear="none">from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). In the second sentence, when you say<br clear="none">“as part of the transition,” were you referring to the NTIA transition? Or<br clear="none">did you mean something like “in advance of such a transition” in the second<br clear="none">sentence?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Indeed I meant "as part of the NTIA transition". That is- let's have the<br clear="none">conversation now, on good terms, with a view towards what is best for the<br clear="none">Internet. Thanks for asking for the clarification.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Eliot<br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Ianaplan mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org" href="mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org">Ianaplan@ietf.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan</a></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>