[CWG-Stewardship] IETF comments on completion and implementation timeline

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Tue Jun 9 16:55:58 UTC 2015

Jonathan, Lise,

This is the response the IETF came up with when the NTIA and
ICG asked about what our estimate is for finalising and implementing
the transition proposal.

This is mostly for your information, but I wanted to highlight the
something specific for you as well. At the end of the message there
is also a part that relates to potential interactions with the CWG

This is from my mail sent to the ICG list a couple of days ago.

> This is a response to a query regarding transition finalisation and
> implementation time frames, sent to the IANAPLAN working
> group list by the chairs of the IANA Transition Coordination
> Group (ICG) on May 27th.
> While I am carrying this response back to the ICG, the substance
> of this response has been discussed in the IANAPLAN working
> group and the relevant parts of IETF leadership. I believe this
> response represents the (rough) consensus opinion that
> emerged in the discussion, as well as the current state
> of IANA arrangement updates that our leadership bodies
> have been working on.
> The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
> in place and implemented in preceding years.
> 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 iana.org.
> 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.
> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
> with other parts of the process may bring additional
> tasks that need to be executed either before or
> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
> the treatment of IANA trademarks and domains. The
> IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this,
> if asked. We are awaiting coordination on this
> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
> execution once the decision is made. From our
> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
> however.
> In addition, the names community has proposed the
> creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
> agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
> and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​
> transition would take place as described above.  That is
> our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
> further action from the IETF, more work and community
> agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
> cannot be set until the scope is known.
> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
> (reporting his summary of the situation)
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/815db268/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list