[Internal-cg] [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Wu Kuo-Wei kuoweiwu at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 12:47:11 UTC 2015

1. The proposals of IETF and CRISP are in public and delivered to ICG already. They are in  ICG's hands now. ICANN (including board) have no intention to intervene the ICG independent process. ICANN staff and Board continue to support independence of the ICG process.

2. The MOU or agreement between ICANN and IETF/NRO exist for many years and continue to exchange the performance information of IANA regularly.  ICANN/IANA always do the best to meet the expectation of IETF and NRO, and continue to improve our service. This is one of key factors for the success operation of global internet. And it proves the current operation is benefit to the communities and global internet users. 

3. Many on the ICANN Board support the sound engineering principle as recently articulated by Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB,  that for any working system change it as little as possible, and make gradual reforms over time.   The Board continues to encourage simpler solutions where possible rather than creating new structures that require new legal frameworks and governance models.

4. Again, ICANN will continue to improve IANA service in response to the needs of the users of the services.  At the same time, we strongly believe all the parties (include IETF, CRISP, CWG) have a belief "to maintain security, stability, and resiliency of global internet" to the benefit of all.   

5. ICANN will support the proposals generated by the community that have reached consensus.

Kuo Wu

> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> 於 2015年4月30日 20:12 寫道:
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Subject: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
>> Date: 30 Apr 2015 12:57:53 GMT+1
>> To: ianaplan at ietf.org
>> 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
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150430/b97f1552/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list