Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 +0100

Dear colleagues,

This is an update to the community on the current discussion between
the IETF and ICANN regarding the annual SLA or Supplemental Agreement.
Each year, the IETF (via the IAOC) and ICANN specify a supplemental
agreement to our Memorandum of Understanding, in order to ensure that
any gaps or identified operational issues are addressed.

As you are aware, inspired by the request from the IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG), last year we formed the IANAPLAN
working group and achieved IETF consensus on the state of affairs with
IANA registries published under the direction of the IETF.  That
consensus is captured in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09, which was
transmitted to the ICG.  In that document the community sought to have
some facts acknowledged as part of any IANA transition plan:

  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 the protocol parameters registries
     or other resources currently located at iana.org.

Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been
negotiating with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our
annual Service Level Agreement.  After some iterations, we arrived at
text that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed
us that they are unable to agree to that text right now.  ICANN told
us that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly
put them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA.

It is our view that the substance of the statements above is already
part of our agreement with ICANN, and that we are merely elaborating
details of that existing agreement.  We expect that as we continue
towards the orderly winding down of NTIA's involvement in the IANA
processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping
with IETF consensus.

We will of course continue to assess the situation, agreements, and
next steps, as well as developments in other operational
communities. We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and
the IETF makes good sense, and is good for the Internet.  The IETF has
stated very strongly that it supports that existing agreement.  That
strong support is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not
waver in our commitment to the IETF's continued responsible
stewardship of the protocol parameters registries.

We note that the IETF community remains very satisfied with ICANN's
current level of performance.  The existing supplemental agreement,
from last year, continues until it is replaced.

We welcome your thoughts about this situation.  We will continue to
use the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions.

Best regards,

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

Tobias Gondrom
IAOC Chair

Andrew Sullivan
IAB Chair

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:16:36 +0200

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for this. Can you please post the exact language that ICANN has
difficulty with?

I fully agree that the two bullets below seem to me to be consistent with
the current IANA contract between ICANN and NTIA.

However, we are discussing arrangements that would hold if there is no
longer any contract between ICANN and NTIA, so I don't understand how the
current contract conditions could prevent ICANN from agreeing to future
arrangements.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: jeudi, 30. avril 2015 13:58
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Understanding this consensus, the IETF leadership have been negotiating
> with ICANN to include text to satisfy these points in our annual
> Service Level Agreement.  After some iterations, we arrived at text
> that we think captures the IETF consensus, but ICANN has informed us
> that they are unable to agree to that text right now.  ICANN told us
> that, in their opinion, agreeing to that text now would possibly put
> them in breach of their existing agreement with the NTIA.
> 
> processes, our existing arrangements will be preserved, in keeping with
> IETF consensus.
> 
> next steps, as well as developments in other operational communities.
> We think that the existing agreement between ICANN and the IETF makes
> good sense, and is good for the Internet.  The IETF has stated very
> strongly that it supports that existing agreement.  That strong support
> is a necessary condition for success, and we shall not waver in our
> commitment to the IETF's continued responsible stewardship of the
> protocol parameters registries.
> 
> We welcome your thoughts about this situation.  We will continue to use
> the IANAPLAN mailing list for these discussions.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jari Arkko
> IETF Chair
> 
> Tobias Gondrom
> IAOC Chair
> 
> Andrew Sullivan
> IAB Chair
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [email-masked]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: 'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:30:08 +0100

Hi,

> Thank you for this. Can you please post the exact language that ICANN has

We're waiting for confirmation as to whether the language as it stood
was still covered by the normal "private negotation" rules, so I don't
think I can release the text at the moment.  We're working on that,
however.  This is in keeping with the normal way the IAOC develops
these annual supplemental agreement or any other IAOC agreement.
However, I should note something:

> longer any contract between ICANN and NTIA

That is not what we were discussing.  The IETF and ICANN were
discussing the annual SLA or supplemental agreement.  It would come
into effect at signing, as all the previous ones have, and since ICANN
still has an agreement with NTIA right now, ICANN's current agreements
are (quite correctly) a constraint on what ICANN can do.  I'm sorry if
that wasn't clear in our update.

Best regards,

Andrew (speaking for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:34:09 +0200

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for the clarification, I had indeed misunderstood.

Do you know whether ICANN would have any objections if the new language only
enters into force if and when the current contract with NTIA is no longer in
force?

Best,
Richard

> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 'Andrew
> Sullivan'
> Sent: jeudi, 30. avril 2015 17:30
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with
> ICANN
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Thank you for this. Can you please post the exact language that ICANN
> > has difficulty with?
>

---

From: 'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:41:31 +0100

Hi,

> enters into force if and when the current contract with NTIA is no longer in

I do not.  I would be completely unsurprised if they were
contemplating that question, but I do not know their position.

Best regards,

A (speaking for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:25:10 +0100

Hi,

Do I understand this to mean that IETF  wants to get it's RFP response to
ICG activated and operational before conclusion of the transition process?

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.