Subject: [Ianaplan] [[email-masked]: [IAB] IAB comment on question from ICG]

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:40:08 -0400

Dear colleagues,

The IAB sent the following message to the ICG.

Best regards,

Andrew

----- Forwarded message from IAB Chair <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:58:28 -0400
From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: IAB <[email-masked]>
Subject: [IAB] IAB comment on question from ICG
List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org>

The ICG has posed the following question to the protocol parameters
community:

"The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation
as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the
Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA
functions could end up being carried out by different operators and
suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and
coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper
understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of
the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the
functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This
information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the
case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the
three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and
cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging
existing coordination mechanisms or new ones.  Can the protocol
parameters operational community provide such a commitment?"

As noted in the IANAPLAN documents, elements of this work are already
in place: "The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an
ongoing informal dialog".  The IAB further notes that it has a
chartered responsibility for maintaining technical liaison
relationships "with other organizations concerned with standards and
other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide
Internet."  ​The IAB believes that the information exchange described
by the ICG falls within the IAB's ongoing commitment to serve as the
point of coordination for the IETF, and the IAB remains committed to
continuing such coordination.  Furthermore, the IAB believes that the
dialogue would be extended to other organizations as circumstances
require.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]