Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01.txt - a few comments

From: Richard Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 19:32:40 +0200

I support these suggestions. 

Best Richard

Sent from Samsung Mobile

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]> </div><div>Date:19/10/2014  19:26  (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To:  </div><div>Cc: [email-masked] </div><div>Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01.txt
  - a few comments </div><div>
</div>[email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition Working Group of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on IANA
>          Authors         : Eliot Lear
>                            Russ Housley
> Filename        : draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01.txt
>

A few comments on the draft:

RE. SECTION 0. (PROPOSAL TYPE)  (As sent in a previous email, re. 
Richard Hill's comment about defining the IETF Trust):

I suggest that two background paragraphs be inserted at the very 
beginning of Section 0. (Proposal Type) to set context and scope, define 
players, and so forth.  This is a first cut, based largely on language 
pulled from the IETF web site.  I've noted a couple of areas where 
clarification by lawyers would be appropriate:

-----
The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) is the voluntary 
international standards body responsible for Internet Technical 
Standards, specifically including Internet protocol parameters. 
Architectural Oversight is provided by the Internet Architecture Board 
(IAB).  Both the IAB and IESG are chartered by the Internet Society.  
The authority of the IETF, in these matters, is recognized implicitly 
and explicitly by both US and international law and treaty that defer 
matters of technical standards to duly constituted voluntary standards 
organizations <perhaps the lawyers can provide a good citation here>.  
For legal and contractual purposes, the IETF acts through the <IETF 
Secretariat, the IAOC, and the IETF Trust --- need somebody to define 
these, and their roles, explicitly>.  For purposes of this document, we 
use the term IETF to refer to the combination of these entities.

Coordination of protocol parameters is performed, as directed by IETF, 
is performed by The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is 
chartered by by the Internet Society (ISOC) to act as the clearinghouse 
to assign and coordinate the use of numerous Internet protocol 
parameters.  The IANA function is currently performed by ICANN, under 
the provisions of the IANA Functions Contract between NTIA (US 
Government) and ICANN (par. C.2.9.1), and an MoU executed between the 
IETF and ICANN.
-----

RE. SECTION II. (EXISTING, PRE-TRANSITION ARRANGEMENT) SUBSECTION A. 
(POLICY SOURCES)

I'd suggest including a variant of the above language as a lead-in:

Coordination of protocol parameters is performed, in support of a the 
IETF, is performed by The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), 
which is chartered by by the Internet Society (ISOC) to act as the 
clearinghouse to assign and coordinate the use of numerous Internet 
protocol parameters.  The IANA function is currently performed by ICANN, 
under contract to the US NTIA, which sets overarching policy for the 
function.  Detailed policy for the protocol parameters function is set 
by the IETF in accord with an MoU executed between the IETF and ICANN.

RE. SECTION II. (EXISTING, PRE-TRANSITION ARRANGEMENT) SUBSECTION B. 
(OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY)
RE. PARAGRAPHS ON >> Policy Sources:

I'd suggest another variant as a lead-in:

Currently, overarching oversight and accountability for all IANA 
functions is provided via terms of the the NTIA-ICANN IANA Functions 
Contract.  In practice, oversight and accountability, as regards the 
protocol parameters functions, is governed by the MoU between IETF and 
ICANN.

RE. PARAGRAPHS ON >> "entity or entities that provide oversight:"

Notable for it's omission:  IPROC (IETF Protocol Registries Oversight 
Committee) - as described in detail on the IETF web site 
(http://www.ietf.org/iana/iproc.html) - or is the web site out of date?  
If that's current - it really should be included in our response.

RE. PARAGRAPHS ON >> mechanisms:

Suggested lead-in:

Day-to-day mechanisms for oversight, accountability, and recourse are 
discussed below.  The ultimate, overarching recourse mechanisms are 
cancellation or non-renewal of either the NTIA IANA Functions Contract 
(by NTIA) and/or of the IETF-ICANN MoU by IETF.

RE. SECTION III (PROPOSED POST-TRANSITION OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 
ARRANGEMENT)

There seems to be a mismatch between starting out with No changes are 
required, ..."  and then going on with several groups of paragraphs, 
each starting with to "To address issues raised by the IETF community" 
and going on to suggest that the IAOC negotiate supplemental agreements 
regarding:
- intellectual property rights
- additional dispute resolution
- transition (with reference to NTIA contract clauses C.7.3 and I.61, 
and "transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to a subsequent 
operator")

Rather than starting with "No changes are required," it would probably 
be more accurate and appropriate to state "No major changes are 
required, however, the IETF community has raised several concerns that 
should be addressed by supplemental agreements to the IETF-ICANN MoU, 
prior to a transition to post-NTIA regime."

Personally, I would also like to see something that makes  it crystal 
clear that, post NTIA, if either IETF or ICANN exercise their 
prerogative to non-renew or cancel the MoU, all authority, 
responsibility, intellectual property, marks and identifiers, etc. 
revert to IETF.  (Which, I think, would be the case if NTIA were to 
cancel or non-renew the current contract - probably something for the 
lawyers to weigh in on.)  Maybe even lead with an explicit statement 
that, "In a post-transition environment, all authority for the protocol 
parameters function will become vested in the IETF, governed by the MoU 
and supplemental agreements in place between IETF and the IANA Functions 
Operator (currently ICANN).  In the event of non-renewal or cancellation 
of these agreements, by either party, all suthority, responsibility, 
intellectual property, marks and identifiers, etc., as regards Internet 
protocol parameters revert to the IETF."

RE. SECTION IV (TRANSITION IMPLICATIONS)

Again, I don't think that "No structural changes are required." is an 
accurate statement.

i. We are recommending supplemental agreements in several areas.
ii. Those structural agreements at least allow for (anticipate?) 
structural changes - such as transition IANA functions to a different 
contractor - which, if only one set of functions were transferred, would 
definitely involve structural changes.

Perhaps more accurate would be "No immediate structural changes are 
required.  However we recommend several changes to contractual 
agreements be implemented prior to a transition (see Section III)." And 
perhaps go on to mention that, under certain circumstances, structural 
changes might occur down the road.

Respectfully,

Miles Fidelman
Speaking for myself, as a (way-too-long-standing) member of the Internet 
Community

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan