[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding mailing list discussions about the existing MOU between the IETF and ICANN with respect to the IANA functions

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Steve DelBianco,

In response to your post on the subject of the IANA transition.


The MOU between ICANN and the IETF dated 1 March 200 with respect to the IANA functions already includes a termination clause.

From:  https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en

" This MOU will remain in effect until either modified or cancelled by mutual consent of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or cancelled by either party with at least six (6) months notice"

There is no refusal to continue to provide services to the IETF under the current arrangements. 

There is a supplemental agreement between ICANN and the IETF that defines the commitments, services, and tasks ICANN undertakes to fulfil the IANA services on behalf of the IETF: 

http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf

This agreement is subject to annual review.

My understanding is that the IETF has asked to incorporate some changes as they relate to termination following the discussions within the IETF on the IANA transition.   The ICANN staff feel that some of the changes are in conflict with the current agreement been ICANN and NTIA, and  should happen after the NTIA has considered the final proposals from the community.

I think there are two scenarios after the NTIA considers the community proposals:

(1) The NTIA agrees to transfer stewardship to the community -  and we start working on the  various legal arrangements to support that

(2) The NTIA wants to retain stewardship – in which case we may request changes to the NTIA contract based on the community proposals and then adjust existing arrangements accordingly

As far as I am aware – the response so far has been to wait until the process is complete, before changing legal arrangements.      In terms of operational improvements – they should continue to be improved based on feedback from the users under the current arrangements, and these improvements could be incorporated into the supplemental agreement.

The bottom line is that ICANN will continue to provide and improve its services to the IETF as it has for the past 15 years, and if the IETF is unhappy they already have the right to terminate with 6 months notice.   

There seems to be confusion between the annual process to update the existing supplementary agreement between ICANN and the IETF - with the overall IANA stewardship transition process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin