Subject: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:42:47 -0400

Hello,
 given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed or discussed before or during the meeting.

Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt

Please send comments to the list.

Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:23:28 +0100

Greetings all,

I have reviewed the -02 revision of the document and tried to skim the high points of the list conversation over the past month. Please consider these WGLC comments.

In my opinion the document is in very good shape and is essentially ready to go; many thanks to the editors and the whole WG for getting this into the shape it's in. I do have one minor editorial / process question, though:

In the first answer to III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements, are the following paragraphs intended to (1) direct IAOC to action or (2) to report to the ICG that IAOC has been directed to certain actions through some other instrument?

>    To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
>    intellectual property rights, the IAOC is asked to engage the
>    appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
>    that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
>    domain.
> 
>    To address a desire by the IETF community to have mechanisms that
>    allow for additional dispute resolution between the IETF and the
>    current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is asked to
>    conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and any
>    necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually acceptable
>    to the parties.
> 
>    To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>    to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>    agreement that-
> 
>    1.  maintains the IANA functions operator's obligations established
>        under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract
>        between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract]; and
> 
>    2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>        subsequent operators.
> 

I believe it should be the latter, and that the language should therefore be corrected to "the IAOC has been asked".

Second, I think these paragraphs should be introduced as having been raised within the IANAPLAN WG specifically (correct me if this is not the case), and that they should appear _after_ the subsequent paragraphs in the answer on the principles elaborated by this process -- the message is IMO "it's working, we met and discussed our principles, and while we were considering this RFP we found a few issues, which we are using the processes within our community to fix".

Otherwise, ship it.

Thanks again, all, and cheers,

Brian

On 28 Oct 2014, at 15:42, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:33:35 +1300

To be sure this is noted as a WGLC comment, I'll repeat it:
Please add a few words defining the IETF Trust, as suggested in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00649.html

Otherwise I am satisfied with this version.

   Brian

On 29/10/2014 03:42, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> .

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 02:01:10 +0000

This is good enough, so please push it forwards and thanks to
the editors.

I have 3 minor comments:

(1) On p11 I see this:

I'm not sure if "public domain" is the right legal/copyright term
here. I guess ask a lawyer at some stage, but the intent is correct
and, other than possibly not being in lawyerly language, clear

(2) Also on p11:

I have no such desire and I find the last clauses vague to the point
of meaninglessness. It's not clear to me if the WG do or do not have
that desire (the chairs will call that) nor whether that'd survive
IETF LC even if the WG have that opinion. I think deleting this
paragraph would be better, but am fine that rough consensus to keep
it or not is determined by the WG chairs and IETF LC.

(3) A pure nit: p16 says:
   The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this
   response.

That is correct, but followed external review allowing any IETF
participant to comment on WG formation, as usual. And the charter
of the WG also says:

  The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol
  registries component of the IANA function works well. As a result,
  minimal change in the oversight of the IETF protocol parameters
  registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when
  possible.

I think calling out that the charter was essentially subject to IETF
review and that the charter says the above would both be good to do.
I agree that that's redundant, but think it could be worth it in this
case.

Cheers and thanks,
S.

On 28/10/14 14:42, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working group
> last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our meeting is
> scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people send their
> comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed or discussed
> before or during the meeting.
> 
> Draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list [email-masked]

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:19:07 +0100

Hi Brian,

I just want to acknowledge that I saw this comment (twice).  If you have
suggested wording, that would be appreciated.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:24:22 +0100

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your comments.  Please see below.

> and, other than possibly not being in lawyerly language, clear

We have spoken to a lawyer ;-)  Our intent is specific here.

> it or not is determined by the WG chairs and IETF LC.

For the chairs to comment.
> I agree that that's redundant, but think it could be worth it in this

Indeed.  Taken with Brian's comments, I would add that an informational
description of the process that is taking place now (and that it
conforms to our normal way of working) should be included in the draft.

Eliot

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:13:47 +0100

>>>>
>    >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or
>    >>> activity.
>    >>>
> 
> 
>    IETF Response:
> 
>    The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work.
>    Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service
>    that is provided to the IETF.

I think that the "protocol parameters registries" are not (well) defined
in this context. A reader will most probably associate this with
www.iana.org/protocols, which is a subset.

Since we seemed to agree that the IETF is responsible for all number
space with the exception of the space delegated to the Internet Number
Registry System, I think mentioning this in the overlap section only is
not enough.

Perhaps we can say:

IETF Response:

The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. These
also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address space and
some of its sub-registries, AS number space, and a number of special use
registries with regard to domain names. For more detail please refer to
the documentation in the "overlaps or interdependencies" section.

Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service that
is provided to the IETF.

The rest of the document looks good to me.

Andrei

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:27:37 +0100

Hi Andrei,

> Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service that

I have no objection to this proposed change.

Eliot

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:08:58 +0100

>I have no objection to this proposed change.

I have an objection on the process to accept the change. IANAL and 
there is no lawyer involved in this debate.

The whole IETF production is subject to the BCP 78 license. Every 
advise concerning the interests, rights and duties of the IETF, 
fellow stakeholders, and users should consider the possible positive, 
negative, constraining, liberating impacts on them and on the global 
governance of the world digital ecosystem in their past 
(NTIA/centralized oversight) and new (FCC/multilateral oversight) 
legal, operational and consequently technological contexts.

jfc

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:11:55 -0700

I’d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of the document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns this text:

"To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
   to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
   agreement that-
  ...

       subsequent operators."

My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to two operators. So if we end up in a situation where there are multiple IANA operators for different registries, how will it be decided who gets the existing marks? If I were the current owner of such marks, I don’t see how I could agree to this provision without foreclosing the possibility that there may be multiple simultaneous operators in the future. This is why I think this requirement should be stated as requiring “cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize confusion" associated with marks and identifiers, or some similar language that provides a safeguard in the event of transition but does not mandate specific transfer actions related to marks and identifiers.

I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires the IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of maintaining the existing relationship that the IETF has with the IAOC wherein it is the IAOC’s responsibility to determine the format in which is carries out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.

Alissa