[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Thanks Andrei. Very interesting indeed.

As I have stated before, I believe this level of transparency between the IETF/IAOC/IAB Chairs and the IETF community is vital and serves the community well. 

This is why I believe it is so important for us to be clear about what the next steps are for us and what role there is for the community to play. 

Nurani


> On 30 apr 2015, at 14:17, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Might be of interest of what's happening in the IETF/IAOC land.
> 
> Andrei
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 +0100
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: ianaplan at ietf.org
> 
> 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
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp