Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Writeup for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06 v20141126c
Chairs: Marc Blanchet and Leslie Daigle

1.  Summary

The document shepherd is Andrew Sullivan.  The responsible Area
Director is Jari Arkko.  The document is the product of the IANAPLAN
working group.

This document embodies the IETF's response to the IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposal. It outlines the
IETF's views on the necessary arrangements to support the continued
operation of registries operated by IANA for the IETF under the terms
of an agreement between the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration and the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers).

2.  Reviews and Consensus

There is rough consensus in the WG to publish the document as an RFC.

To a large extent, the document expresses things on which the IETF had
previously already achieved consensus. There is no reason to suppose,
for instance, that there is much desire to open the terms of RFC 2860.

There was ample discussion of the Internet draft in the working group,
both on the list and in the meeting session at IETF 91.  These
discussions mostly focussed on certain contentious issues.  Several
of them were worked out as a result of WG discussion.

There was a suggestion that the document should request the transfer
of the domain "" and also any marks associated with IANA to
the control of the IETF Trust. The WG did not agree to this
suggestion, and instead reached rough consensus not to request such

There was a broad suggestion that the document should contain either
much stronger statements of terms acceptable to the IETF, or else
strong statements instructing the IAOC what terms to negotiate. The WG
did not agree to this suggestion, and reached rough consensus not to
include such statements in output from the WG. In addition, a member
of the IAOC pointed out that it would be hard for the IAOC to
implement instructions that did not have a fallback position (what to
do in case negotiation failed). The WG's charter explicitly required
the WG not to constrain the IAB's or IAOC's execution of their
respective duties too much, so it is difficult to know how the WG
could have produced something incorporating this suggestion, even if
it had wanted to.

Two participants were sufficiently unhappy with the resulting draft,
apparently in part because of the previous two decisions, that they
requested their names be removed from the Acknowledgements section,
despite their contributions to the discussion of the draft.

3.  Intellectual Property

Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There are no IPR
disclosures on the document.

4.  Other Points

The I-D should not be published as an RFC immediately after approval.
Instead, the IESG should hold it and transmit its approved status
through its appointees to the ICG. If discussion with the ICG results
in proposals to change the proposal, such changes will need to be
discussed in the WG.