Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt> (Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries) to Informational RFC

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Dec 2014 18:11:32 -0000

While I completely agree with the general message of this memo, that
IANA works fine so don't break it, I have a few questions and a concern:

At the top of page 8, it refers to disputes about policy.  To me the
question is ambiguous: does it mean disputes within the IETF, or
disputes between the IETF and IANA, e.g., "we can't implement that"?
As far as I know, there's never been a significant policy dispute with
IANA, so you might as well say so for anyone who was wondering about
that question.

At the top page 11, it claims that the MOU is "global in nature."
While that is surely the intention, the MOU is in practice a contract
between ICANN, a California corporation, and the IETF which to the
extent it exists, is a Virginia trust.  So if push came to shove and
one side or the other had to enforce some provision of the contract
against the other, US law would apply and it'd happen in US courts.
So say that -- the IETF operates globally, but it is domiciled in the
US, and the current MOU with ICANN is a US agreement.

Following that, there is a discussion of all the stuff we don't want
to change, all of which is fine.  But it doesn't say other than sort
of implicitly in #3 on page 13 that the IETF needs a binding agreement
with the IANA operator that has protections for the IETF community
that are substantially the same as those in the MOU in RFC 2860.  It
really needs to say that explicitly.

If IANA stays with ICANN and ICANN reaffirms the MOU, we're fine.  But
if it were someone else (wave hands about free-floating non-US things
that keep coming up in ALAC and NCUC discussions) who was less
interested in spending $1m/yr to provide a free service to what they
saw as a bunch of nerds from rich countries who keep getting in the
way of their core mission*, things could get very unpleasant.

R's,
John

* - providing an ever increasing revenue stream to contracted
registries and registrars

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:25:44 +1300

Hi John,

On 03/12/2014 07:11, John Levine wrote:
...
> extent it exists, is a Virginia trust.  

At the the time the MoU was signed, that Trust did not exist. The
IETF was simply in some sort of loose association with ISOC, which
iirc is a D.C. corporation. Not that this changes your argument.

> So if push came to shove and

I agree that a US court would very likely accept jurisdiction, but
I don't think we need to say that. We should say that we are global.
That's sufficient for this draft's purpose.

> really needs to say that explicitly.

I think the first sentence on page 15 covers this:

  "What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any
   supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements
   outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP."

> If IANA stays with ICANN and ICANN reaffirms the MOU, we're fine.

As a point of order, they don't need to reaffirm it. All they need
to do is not give notice to cancel it.

> But

Sure. But this document is surely not the place for a contingency plan.

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:34:10 +0100

Hi John,

I've seen Brian's response, and I agree with much of it.  I just wanted
to comment on one point:

> US, and the current MOU with ICANN is a US agreement.

I think Brian misunderstood your meaning of the word "trust" above.  I
recognize your meaning, though IANAL, as Vint highlighted ;-)

> really needs to say that explicitly.

This was debated substantially in the working group.  As Brian mentions,
this is a matter that is to be considered by the IAOC in their
discussions with ICANN.  The key issue the WG discussed was whether
additional "binding" agreement would benefit the IETF.  Many felt it
would not.  Even so, the matter rests with the IAOC.
> way of their core mission*, things could get very unpleasant.

The moment it becomes someone else, we're talking about a new agreement,
as would be necessary for any commercial arrangement.  2860 and 6220
cover that.

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 15:21:16 +0200

John, thank you for the feedback!

>> IANA, so you might as well say so for anyone who was wondering about

Thanks for pointing this out. The text refers to policy within IETF and disputes within IETF. Perhaps that could be clarified. Eliot?

(Given the roles for the different parties, there should really not be policy disputes between IETF and IANA. However, there are concerns of implementation, and occasionally there are question marks on whether the specified policy is implementable, or implementable at a reasonable effort. Consider a hypothetical registry that would increase data and workload multifold; IANA would be right to question such changes, particularly if those were not understood at the time of discussion the said policy. Nevertheless, such concerns should be fed into to the usual IESG approval, IAB oversight, etc. processes, and resolved per community consensus. FYI - minor issues with policies are discovered by IANA almost daily, and those concerns are fed to the processes and resolved. Most of this is just mistakes and unclear instructions in RFCs-to-be.) 

> This was debated substantially in the working group.  

That is the main thing to observe. The topic has gotten a lot of attention during WG discussion, and a particular outcome emerged, and I believe the draft reflects that.

Jari

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Dec 2014 17:14:30 -0000

>That is the main thing to observe. The topic has gotten a lot of attention during WG discussion,
>and a particular outcome emerged, and I believe the draft reflects that.

It sounds like we want the same thing here, but when I read the draft,
I don't see it actually saying that if there's a new IANA operator, we
need a new equally good contract.  That seems to me to be worth making
explicit.

R's,
John

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:34:58 +0100

John,

> need a new equally good contract. That seems to me to be worth making

I think that's a fine suggestion.  The discussions and conclusions of
the WG, so far as I can tell, were exclusively focused on the ICANN/NTIA
relationship, and your suggestion reinforces the conclusion by inference
(we CAN change should the need arise) and it gives people a view as to
how we would see to the continuity of the service.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:40:24 +1300

> how we would see to the continuity of the service.

Yes, I agree with that and indeed I suspect it is most people's working
assumption, to the extent that we overlooked writing it down ;-).

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:18:06 +0100

Hi John,

Responding to your message on 12/2/14, 7:11 PM, I am returning to one

> IANA, so you might as well say so for anyone who was wondering about

Your point is well taken.  The draft later contains the following statement:

To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues.

RFC 2860 specifies what is to happen in the case of a technical dispute.

I propose to make crystal clear what you have said above, as follows

To date there have been no unresolved disputes or issues between the
IETF and the current IANA functions operator.  [RFC2860] specifies that
should a technical dispute arise, "the IANA shall seek and follow
technical guidance exclusively from the IESG."

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:57:58 -0500

> assumption, to the extent that we overlooked writing it down ;-).

I agree with all of the above. Eliot, did you make a change with regards to this?

Jari

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:29:06 +0100

Hi Jari,

> I agree with all of the above. Eliot, did you make a change with regards to this?

Yes.  The text I propose to include for this purpose is as follows:

   The MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the
   arrangement with six months notice.  Obviously such action would only
   be undertaken after serious consideration. 
+  In that case a new IANA
+  functions operator would be selected, and a new agreement with that
+  operator would be established.

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:35:39 -0500

> +  operator would be established.

Looks good. Thanks.

Jari