[Internal-cg] IETF response to the time frame inquiry

[Alissa Cooper]

Thanks Jari.
Alissa

On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> This is a response to a query regarding transition finalisation and
> implementation time frames, sent to the IANAPLAN working
> group list by the chairs of the IANA Transition Coordination
> Group (ICG) on May 27th.
> 
> While I am carrying this response back to the ICG, the substance
> of this response has been discussed in the IANAPLAN working
> group and the relevant parts of IETF leadership. I believe this
> response represents the (rough) consensus opinion that
> emerged in the discussion, as well as the current state
> of IANA arrangement updates that our leadership bodies
> have been working on.
> 
> The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the
> implementation of the transition of the stewardship.
> In our case, most of the necessary framework is already
> in place and implemented in preceding years.
> 
> The remaining step is an updated agreement with
> ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are
> outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt:
> 
> 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 of the protocol parameters registries
>    or other resources currently located at iana.org.
> 
> The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has
> decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level
> Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated
> agreement. They have drafted the update and from our
> perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
> agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially
> complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination
> as a final step. 
> 
> Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions
> with other parts of the process may bring additional
> tasks that need to be executed either before or
> after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs,
> and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning
> the treatment of IANA trademarks and domains. The
> IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this,
> if asked. We are awaiting coordination on this
> to complete, but see no problem in speedy
> execution once the decision is made. From our
> perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition,
> however.
> 
> In addition, the names community has proposed the
> creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing
> agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place
> and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ 
> transition would take place as described above.  That is
> our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require
> further action from the IETF, more work and community
> agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work
> cannot be set until the scope is known.
> 
> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
> (reporting his summary of the situation)