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

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:09:48 +0100

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 07:25:10PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> 
> 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?

I don't think so.

I just reviewed the minutes from IETF 91 at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan.  To
me, it was plain that we were just planning to include items in our
negotiation this year (I spent about 3 minutes looking for an email
thread to that effect, too, in which I seem to recall having
participated).  None of that negotiation entails that it needs to be
completed before the ICG has proceeded. 

Best regards,

A (as ever, speaking for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:31:56 +0100

Hi
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>

> > ICG activated and operational before conclusion of the transition

Great. This is the response i expected and i would have been surprised if
otherwise. Based on above then it may be important to clarify the section
of the IAB chair's(your) statement below:

Understanding this consensus[*i.e the IANAPLAN*], 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[*i.e the consensus achieved on
IANAPLAN* which has been submitted to ICG]

The interpretation of the statement above could imply that IETF wants to
make operational the proposal that came out of IANAPLAN. It is based on
that, that i think the response from ICANN below may not be entirely out of
order:

After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the IETF
consensus[*i.e the proposal from IANAPLAN*], but ICANN has informed us that
they are unable to *agree* to that text *right now*.

So generally speaking (and based on information available to me), it seem
this is a timing issue and there may just be need to clarify from ICANN if
they are fine with agreeing with the term post-NTIA.

As you have rightly stated, I believe the current agreement should-be/is
sufficient enough at ensuring IETF continue to get its usual IANA function
service.

Regards

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

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[email-masked]
<[email-masked]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 11:41:06 -0400

Hmm.  I was a little concerned that your exchange with Andrew
might deepen the confusion.  Let me try a different perspective
with the understanding that I'm speaking for myself only and
doing a certain amount of guessing -- I'm not enough part of
"the leadership" to speak for them even if I wanted to.

--On Friday, May 01, 2015 14:31 +0100 Seun Ojedeji
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > 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?
>> 
>> I don't think so.
>> 
> 
> Great. This is the response i expected and i would have been
> surprised if otherwise. Based on above then it may be
> important to clarify the section of the IAB chair's(your)
> statement below:
>...
> So generally speaking (and based on information available to
> me), it seem this is a timing issue and there may just be need
> to clarify from ICANN if they are fine with agreeing with the
> term post-NTIA.
> 
> As you have rightly stated, I believe the current agreement
> should-be/is sufficient enough at ensuring IETF continue to
> get its usual IANA function service.

There is, indeed, a timing issue with this and, IMO, most of it
has very little to do with IANAPlan or the transition process.
It helps me to think about what is going on as two separate
activities and threads.  One is the regular, annual, process of
the IAOC and IAB working with ICANN to update the IANA SLA,
setting new targets and clarifying whatever needs to be
clarified.  In part because that is mostly a contractual matter,
the IETF community has rarely been actively aware of those
discussions beyond the usual plenary reports (no particular
secrets, just the IAOC and IAB doing their jobs so there is some
hope of the rest of us being able to get technical/standards
work done).  The other is the specific set of issues associated
with NTIA-IANA transition planning and this WG.

Now, ever since the annual SLA approach was adopted (and really
going back to the March 2000 approval of the MOU included in RFC
2860), the IETF (and, as far as we know, ICANN) have been
working based on the content of that document and some shared
assumptions and interpretations of it.  For this year's version,
the IETF sought to clarify those relationships and
interpretations by incorporating some text into the SLA.  From
the point of view of those SLA discussions, at least as I
understand it, nothing has changed: we are just repeating
existing agreements into the SLA.  The fact that the decision to
clarify those points in the SLA to be sure of them arose from
IANAPlan discussions is, from the SLA point of view, a
coincidence: we could reasonably have included the same
provisions in the SLA at any time (and, from my personal point
of view, should have done so years ago).

Still from the SLA point of view, ICANN appears to have said "we
cannot formally agree, in the SLA, to provisions you have
believed were in effect for years".   That does not make me very
happy and, IMO, should not make anyone who has been depending on
the MOU very happy.   Whether it is serious or not, and whether
it changes the way we look at and interpret even the current
SLA, is ultimately a contractual matter that I'm happy to leave
to the IAB, IAOC, and the IAOC's legal advisors.  I would
encourage others to leave it to them too -- attacks of
speculation and amateur lawyering are rarely productive and tend
to suppress more useful discussions.  

Now, if the IAOC were to conclude either that it was urgent to
update the existing provisions and targets of the SLA or that
questions about our assumptions require an SLA update, now, that
would presumably be an issue with a schedule independent of any
transition-related calendar.  

The transition and IANAPlan-related issues are a different
matter with, as your comments suggest, a different schedule.
As you also suggest, there is at least a potential for ICANN to
agree to do something during the transition or post-transition
that they don't feel able to do now. 

   john

---

From: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:24:29 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> happy and, IMO, should not make anyone who has been depending
> on the MOU very happy.  

This was what raised concern in my mind, too. And this came shortly after the news about ICANN legal's reaction to the CRISP team proposal.  The conjunction of those two events works against (but does not definitively refute) interpreting the problems associated with routine renewal of the supplement SLA as something ICANN would like to do but can't until the transition takes place. Addressing Andrew, I will continue to be mildly "worked up" - on alert would be a better term - until ICANN staff is able to specifically identify the legal issue the new text raises under its existing contract with NTIA.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 14:32:53 -0400

John Klensin said:

"Still from the SLA point of view, ICANN appears to have said "we
cannot formally agree, in the SLA, to provisions you have
believed were in effect for years"."

[BA] Just to be clear, the MOU was not incorporated as an appendix into the
SLA that ICANN refused to sign, though of course the SLA is a supplemental
agreement, being supplemental to the MOU, so that there is an implicit
reference there.  So I don't think we can interpret ICANN's refusal to sign
as a repudiation of the MOU (or even an indication that they would not
agree to a similar Termination Clause at some point in the future).

I would encourage others to leave it to them too -- attacks of
speculation and amateur lawyering are rarely productive and tend
to suppress more useful discussions."

[BA] Similarly, I would not speculate about whether NTIA or members of
Congress did in fact evaluate the proposed SLA and render a judgement or
whether ICANN legal's interpretation of the NTIA-ICANN contract was valid,
since we have no information on the former and the latter is a legal issue.

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 21:03:29 +0200

>At 20:25 30/04/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>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?

The IETF has stated its position on 20150108: "The NTIA must then 
consider and approve the proposal. Finally, it must be 
implemented...the IETF leadership is committed to ensuring a good 
outcome for the Internet."

>On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Sullivan 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>I don't think so.

>surprised if otherwise. Based on above then it may be important to 
>clarify the section of the IAB chair's(your) statement below:
>Understanding this consensus[i.e the IANAPLAN],

Under appeal.

>the IETF leadership have been negotiating with ICANN to include text 
>to satisfy these points in our annual Service Level Agreement.

Not concerned by the IANAPLAN since ICANN is still under NTIA 
contract, which may still last for three years.

>After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the 
>IETF consensus[i.e the consensus achieved on IANAPLAN which has been 
>submitted to ICG]

Cannot have been "submitted", as it is not an RFC and is under the 
appeal process.

>The interpretation of the statement above could imply that IETF 
>wants to make operational the proposal that came out of IANAPLAN. It 
>is based on that, that i think the response from ICANN below may not 
>be entirely out of order:
>
>After some iterations, we arrived at text that we think captures the 
>IETF consensus[i.e the proposal from IANAPLAN],

There is no IETF consensus as yet. It is still subject to the IAB and 
possibly ISOC response to the relevant RFC 2026 appeal(s).

>but ICANN has informed us that they are unable to agree to that text 
>right now.

This seems reasonable since this text does not formally exist right 
now, and the appeal implies either an IAB real control, or a 
practical accountability to a cross RFC 6852 global-community 
multi/omnistakeholderist governance and control under discussion/investigation.

>So generally speaking (and based on information available to me), it 
>seem this is a timing issue and there may just be need to clarify 
>from ICANN if they are fine with agreeing with the term post-NTIA.
>should-be/is sufficient enough at ensuring IETF continue to get its 
>usual IANA function service.

This may be the case in the context of Jari's 20150108 commitment 
that a part of the Internet Community does not accept.
As a result, there are 36 formal questions from the Relationnels 
Libres global community that the IESG was unable to answer. This is 
something the IAB may still do.

---

The problem is that the ICANNET is technically bugged.

A BUG (in this case, the ICANN/NTIA/FCC - seemingly IETF supported - 
"Being Unilaterally Global" bug), whatever the number of people being 
affected and possibly happy with it, is still a bug. And some will 
want a patch. A patch is a patch, but there may be many and 
non-compatible patches.

Today, the alternative sources of patches are: the Global I*Community 
and the rest of the world. The appeal process gives the possibility 
to the Global I*Community to consider the situation and propose its 
own patch. If this patch was acceptable to the multitude as being 
innovatively intelligent and distributed network oriented, it might 
avoid a disarray of multiple competitive patches, what might place 
the internet in a significant jeopardy everyone, including us, will 
try to survive with patches to the multi-patch problem.

This will be up to Andrew, and possibly to Bob Hinden, to make a 
responsible decision.

In focussing questions we hope reducing the number of "MYCANN 
Plugs-in" to "Relationnels Libres" and a few countries and/or 
corps/fundations. Right now the French "Super-Patriot-Act" debate, in 
TIPP/ACTA context, helps us refining our own project toward a 
resillient, protected VGN, fringe to fringe lab test project.

Regards
jfc

>><http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan. 
>>To
>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 08:40:05 +1200

On 02/05/2015 06:32, Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
> agree to a similar Termination Clause at some point in the future).

Not only that. No doubt the IETF would respect the 6 months notice if it ever
came to that point, but termination is a unilateral action, and if the IETF
ever wanted to terminate, I'm sure we'd just do it and take our registries
elsewhere. That's why the clause was put there in the first place.

IMHO, being offered an alternative agreement that did not contain a
satisfactory termination clause would clearly be a valid reason to terminate.

   Brian

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 09:12:57 +0200

At 20:32 01/05/2015, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>[BA] Similarly, I would not speculate about whether NTIA or members 
>of Congress did in fact evaluate the proposed SLA and render a 
>judgement or whether ICANN legal's interpretation of the NTIA-ICANN 
>contract was valid, since we have no information on the former and 
>the latter is a legal issue.

Correct. This is the IETF, not the UN.

The task here is to keep machines working in spite of the political, 
legal, economical, national, etc. influences/interferences. The real 
problem is that ICANN is an architectonical bug. This means that what 
it was designed (from the very begining, what is now emerging in the 
NTIA/ICANN understanding) with its fundamental BUG that ICANN 
considers as a feature and the NTIA as a necessity.

I am not convinced yet this BUG cannot be fixed. So I consider as a 
precautionary duty:

* trying to discover how NTIA, ICANN, IAB, I*Society could fix it.
* prepare a fail safe contingency strategy if they do not succeed or refuse it.

What I observe is that still at this stage even small IETF efforts to 
smooth a few problems is not considered by ICANN, and neither ICANN 
nor the IETF considers how to keep the internet stable in the 
expectable cas of local innitiatives to locally fix the ICANN BUG 
once it fully bears after the NTIA removal.

I frankly do not understand you since this is a double violation of:

1. the IEN 48 second motivation
2. ICANN ICP-3

This shows that your current attitude is in opposition with your 
(IETF/ICANN) own cultures?
jfc