Subject: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:33:16 -0800

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 the IANA protocol parameters registries
        Authors         : Eliot Lear
                          Russ Housley
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04.txt
	Pages           : 30
	Date            : 2014-11-22

Abstract:
   This document contains the a response to a request for proposals from
   the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group regarding the
   protocol parameters registries.  It is meant to be included in an
   aggregate proposal that also includes contributions covering domain
   names and numbering resources that will be submitted from their
   respective operational communities.  The IETF community is invited to
   comment and propose changes to this document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:40:30 +0100

Thank you for this. It does reflect the discussions on the list up to 22
November.  But, on that date, John Curran made a proposal which received
some support, and, at least so far, no opposition.  Unless I am mistaken,
the proposal is to replace, in Section III, the following text:

"The IETF community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with
ICANN.  RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community very
well."

The replacement text would be:

"The IETF community is quite satisfied with the current IANA operations
arrangement with ICANN (as described in RFC 2860), and seeks to continue
this relationship via a legally-binding agreement."

Miles proposed to add at the end "The agreement should address the possible
future eventuality where IANA functions become split across multiple
operators."

That would be OK for me, but I can also live without it, because it is
already implied in the subsequent part of Section III which says:

"It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters
registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s).  ..."

So, if there is no opposition, can we replace the text as shown above? So
that the pertinent part would read:

"The IETF community is quite satisfied with the current IANA operations
arrangement with ICANN (as described in RFC 2860), and seeks to continue
this relationship via a legally-binding agreement."

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: dimanche, 23. novembre 2014 06:33
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ianaplan] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-04.txt
>
>
>
>         Title           : Draft Response to the Internet
> Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol
> parameters registries
>         Authors         : Eliot Lear
>                           Russ Housley
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 09:32:42 -0500

On Nov 23, 2014, at 4:40 AM, Richard Hill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> the proposal is to replace, in Section III, the following text: ...

<chuckle>

Actually, I suggested that the WG might want to consider such text, 
'if the community felt that "legally binding agreement" was important'

My actual proposal was that this specific question (i.e. does the IANA 
operator arrangement need to be a legally binding agreement) should have
some working group discussion.

(Legally binding agreements are nearly universal in service relationships,
but less so in matters of Internet coordination.  Furthermore, several 
folks have already noted it might not be necessary for the IETF in this 
case given its mission and potential mitigation options.)

Having not seen any further discussion on the list regarding the need 
for a legally binding agreement, it remains unclear to me whether the 
working group considers "legally binding agreement" a requirement for 
the post-transition IANA arrangements (hence my proposal remains for 
discussion of that potential requirement itself, not any specific 
document text for addressing it... :-)

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:23:26 -0800

> 'if the community felt that "legally binding agreement" was important'

[BA] It should be understood that the IAOC has the responsibility of coming up with suitable contractual arrangements. This WG has chosen to recommend that they focus on obtaining sufficient property rights to be able to move the protocol parameter function to another operator, as opposed to negotiating a new service contract for an operation that has been functioning well for the better part of a decade.

While either approach could be used as a legal foundation for post-NTIA operation, the recommended approach of this WG seems to have a higher probability of being concluded within the timeline established for the transition.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:51:11 -0500

> [BA] It should be understood that the IAOC has the responsibility of coming up with suitable contractual arrangements. This WG has chosen to recommend that they focus on obtaining sufficient proper…

Bernard - 
 
  Are you suggesting that the discussion of "whether the IANA operator 
  arrangement needs to be a legally binding agreement" (note - I mean 
  that as a potential requirement itself, for inclusion in the response 
  text and as input to the IAOC) not in scope for this working group?

/John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:52:17 +1300

fwiw I would object to adding any reference to "a legally binding
agreement." It isn't what we require -- we require a working IANA, and
there's nothing in the history of the Internet to suggest that "legally
binding" is highly correlated with "working."

I'm very happy with the -04 text. There is one loose end, however:

>    >>>
>    >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
>    >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
>    >>> disagreement.
>    >>>
> 
> 
>    IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses.

I don't like that passive tense. Could we be specific that this
will be inserted by the responsible Area Director after the IESG
has made a determination that rough consensus exists following
IETF Last Call?

   Brian

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:18:00 +0000

Like Brian, and for similar reasons, I would not support adding "a legally binding agreement" to this passage. 

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 23, 2014, at 11:52 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:27:41 +0000

I went through the entire document this time, not just the diff, and found a minor change that needs to be made. No, it doesn't have anything to do with legally binding agreements or trademarks!

The change is under the section "NTIA requirements." In the response to the requirement to "Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS," the document currently states that: 

"The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries. As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.  Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best  protected by maintaining the current service in its current form."

This response is answering a question that wasn't asked (how well do you like the current IANA DNS service?). It needs to be changed to something responsive and simpler, like this: 

"No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS."

What is being asked for in this section of the RFP is a simple description of how _this_ proposal (the IETF's) affects DNS security, stability and resiliency. The answer is simply that it doesn't. 

However positively the IETF feels about the way IANA manages the DNS root at the moment, it is out of scope for the protocols community, in this RFP response, to comment upon or recommend any methods of managing the DNS IANA. It is the names community's process that will propose, or refrain from proposing, changes to the names IANA. 

If there are people in this WG who strongly believe that the "Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best  protected by maintaining the current service in its current form" - presumably including the NTIA oversight function and contract, which are both part of the current service in its current form - I would encourage them to get involved in the Cross-community Working Group convened by the GNSO, CCNSO et al. You might have an uphill battle there saying that nothing about the current service in its current form should be changed - but you are welcome to make that case! ;-) 

--MM

> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of internet-
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 12:33 AM
>         Title           : Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request
> for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries
>         Authors         : Eliot Lear
>                           Russ Housley

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:28:37 +0000

On 23/11/14 20:18, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> Like Brian, and for similar reasons, I would not support adding "a
> legally binding agreement" to this passage.

Same here, I don't see the benefit for us.

And -04 seems just fine to me.

S.

> 
> Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> agreement." It isn't what we require -- we require a working IANA,
>> and there's nothing in the history of the Internet to suggest that
>> "legally binding" is highly correlated with "working."
>> 
>>>>>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your
>>>>>> community's proposal, including a description of areas of
>>>>>> contention or disagreement.
>>> 
>>> 
>> has made a determination that rough consensus exists following IETF
>> Last Call?
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>> list [email-masked] 
> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list [email-masked]

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:49:58 +0100

Brian,

> has made a determination that rough consensus exists following

The intent is to incorporate the shepherd write-up, which contains this
(amongst other) information.  I suggest we simply attach the write-up as
an Appendix.

Eliot

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:56:42 +0100

Greetings, all,

> And -04 seems just fine to me.

+1, have reviewed in its entirety from the beginning.

On Milton's point:

> "The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries. As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.…

I read the intention here, in the context of the whole RFP, as to say something like:

"The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries. As the current IANA protocol parameters operator, ICANN performs its task very well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics. Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best protected by maintaining the operation of the protocol parameters registries in the current form." 

> What is being asked for in this section of the RFP is a simple description of how _this_ proposal (the IETF's) affects DNS security, stability and resiliency. The answer is simply that it doesn't. 

I agree, as it is (a little awkwardly) phrased, it does seem like a non-sequitur, and the simpler formulation is indeed better. I'm fine either way though.

Cheers,

Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:09:09 +1300

> (amongst other) information.  I suggest we simply attach the write-up as

That's fine, assuming the IESG has approved the document based on that
writeup.

 Brian

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:10:55 -0500

Bernard -

That would equate a requirement for a "legally-binding agreement" with 
having to "negotiate a new contract", and it is not apparent that would 
be the case (e.g. it may be simply a matter of minor clarification of the 
existing RFC2860 MOU so that it would be enforceable in a court of law.)

However, after a more careful review, I do agree that the -04 draft takes 
the position that a legally-binding agreement is NOT a requirement, given 
the text in Section II under existing arrangements - 
 "This mechanism is global in nature.  The current agreement does not
  specify a jurisdiction."

and the text in Section III under proposed arrangements -
  "We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters
   registries function needs to be strong enough that they can be
   offered independently by the Internet technical community, 
   without the need for backing from external parties."

Apologies for the confusion over the whether there was a declared 
consensus on this point; the position (that a legally-binding 
agreement is not a requirement) is indeed in -04 draft, even if 
somewhat indirectly stated.

In fact, given the "without the need for backing from external parties" 
language, some may try to argue that a legally-binding (i.e. externally-
enforcable) agreement wouldn't be in alignment with the -04 draft, even 
if the IAOC (on advice of counsel) sought one.  I believe you clarified 
that such would be possible (as the IANAplan text represents minimum 
requirements rather than any prohibition), so the present text regarding
proposed arrangements is likely fine given that context.

Thanks!
/John

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:33:27 -0500

> Le 2014-11-23 à 15:49, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 
> Brian,
> 

I would suggest to just have a URL pointing to the writeup.  not sure there is value is having every possible step of our process being attached as appendix.

Marc.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 05:29:53 +0100

Hi Milton,

The offending text comes from discussion around how to interpret the
question into our context.  In fact, if memory serves, we started with
something very similar to what you proposed.  We may have tried just a
bit too hard to fit a square peg into a round hole.  I prefer your text,
because it more directly answers the question in plain language (and it
uses fewer words, which I personally like).  Unless there is no
strenuous objection, I will incorporate the following in the next
version of the document.  However, due to the timing, I also propose
that this edit be made after IETF last call.

Eliot

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:24:22 +0100

> On 24 Nov 2014, at 05:29, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 

+1 to both.

Cheers,

Brian

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:23:45 +0900

Hello Eliot,

On 2014/11/24 13:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
> strenuous objection,

I hope you meant "unless there is strenuous objection".

Regards,   Martin.

I will incorporate the following in the next

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:04:35 +0100

<chuckle>

One step forward, two steps back.

I would not like to be an IAOC negotiator having that kind of public backing!

I emphasized already that only a three cross agreement ICANN, IETF, 
and RIRs coordinated tree (with collaterals' commitments) could web 
the accountability framework that is necessary for non-secure 
internet stability.

At this stage, it is far too early to know if such a contractual 
tensegrity can be imagined for the confidentiality oriented and 
security included stack internet that the IAB wants us to design and operate.

Since this WG has decided not to consider the reality of its external 
world, the only remaining alternative to an NTIA oversight 
continuation (probably on a decreasing part of the internet - cf. 
Chinese DNS) would remain (up to the IETF Last-Call, the IESG, IAB 
and ISOC to eventually decide):

- either an ITU-I technical/operational governance initiative that 
could meet a temporary approval of the USG, OECD, Brazil, WEF, ISOC, 
Russia, China, and SCO

- or(/and progressively) an innovative use (IUse) oriented move by a 
Libre, Industry, and Govs enhanced coalition based upon the RFC 6852 
principles. As it was actually settled at the WSIS in Tunis, if you 
carefully read the documents, confirmed in Sao Paulo, continued in 
Geneva by the WEF, by Obama before flying to Beijing and by everyone there.

It is now the time to discuss the post-wg/ianaplan issues.

Richard, I fail to see why you want the IETF to remain a key 
contributor. RFC 6852 has documented that it was only a 
non-directly-innovative part of the protocol community (innovation is 
from economic competition between global-community-markets). The IETF 
role is to formalize this innovation. This formalization's 
consecration was the publication of its parameters in the IANA (cf. 
UNICODE and their fight to introduce their own langtags). IETF could 
have retained control: based upon their own experience of their own 
working ways that they have decided in which they should not retain 
that responsibility - only to be in capacity to assist in case of 
conflict. Several made sure that this is really what they want - so 
we are sure that they will not change their mind after we have 
patched a fail-safe plan for ourselves.

Now, what remains for the IAB to decide is if they will retain an 
accountability coordination role. They have already partly abdicated 
it with RFC 6852 in not documenting themselves as an ultimate unique 
referent in case of appeal. This has allowed ICANN (IoT, Rosettanet, 
etc.) to develop its own ambitions/responses, what leaves its own 
accountability in limbo.

Actually, we are in 1977 again, but at a higher stratum (not from PTT 
monopolies to Datacoms competition) but rather from Datacoms 
complications to Metacoms complexity. This is an interesting time.

jfc

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:53:09 +0100

> I hope you meant "unless there is strenuous objection".

Yes.  Some editor I am.

Eliot

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:49:12 +0100

At 05:29 24/11/2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>However, due to the timing, I also propose that this edit be made 
>after IETF last call.

Purely tactically, I propose that this very minor correction is made 
***before*** the IETF last call.
Otherwise this might be the occasion of an unecessary IETF Lastcall 
flamewar IRT. ICANN,  and other matters that are foreign to the charter.

jfc

> > "No changes are proposed in this document that affect the 
> security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS."

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:24:19 -0800

WFM