Minutes for IANAPLAN at interim-2014-ianaplan-1
Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition
||Minutes for IANAPLAN at interim-2014-ianaplan-1
IETF IANAPLAN Working Group Interim meeting
2014-10-06, 14h00-16h00 UTC
Participants (per WebEx participants’ list):
Lynn St. Amour
Marc gave an overview of the proposed timeline and the goals of the interim
== Questions ==
Barry: what are we going to do with the document?
Marc: Aim is to have an approved document (by the work group and IETF), if not
a full RFC.
Russ: Do not want a published RFC, but do want an approved document. The reason
is the ultimate proposal ties together documents from the RIR, ICANN, ICG, etc.
There may have to be another revision based on feedback from other groups.
Could be waiting in RFC Editor Queue or "Point Raised" state in IESG. Up to
Jari as the responsible AD.
Eliot gave an overview of the draft document.
== Open issues ==
Richard suggests we include the full mandate of the ICG in the document.
No objections so will include it.
Proposing no changes to jurisdiction text.
Richard suggests it is premature to close the item.
Russ suggests that we have an agreement that works with ICANN and no
interaction or agreements with NTIA, so NTIA going away will not impact us.
Richard pointed out that the data ownership issue was covered by NTIA, not
IETF-ICANN. Russ said that IETF, ICANN, IANA, ISOC, and NTIA could enter into
an agreement that the data ownership goes into the Public Domain. What about
patent rights? General agreement these are not jurisdictional issues.
= Dispute Resolution =
Richard notes that ICANN has been very good to date, but they may have been
driven by the threat of NTIA taking action. Without NTIA, they may not act in
the best interest of the community.
Richard pointed out that without an explicit venue for contract disputes, we
could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars agreeing to a venue.
Eric strongly agreed with Richard, but said this does not need to be a part of
our document. We just need to ask the IAOC to deal with creating the
Jari and Alissa do not think there is any need for putting such clauses in an
MOU or SLA, especially as it could add a lot of complexity.
Bernard: this is like a prenuptial
Russ: Proposal for WG to suggest to IAOC to address the jurisdiction issue (as
Jari: Agrees with Russ but the IP rights issue is the central point.
= What Changes Are Needed =
Eliot: Proposal is to change "No changes are required." to "Very few changes
are required." Add text about IPR release and where authoritative copy of
Richard: Support for proposal.
Andrew: Why would ICANN ever agree to the pointing to authoritative copy clause?
Richard: We shouldn't discuss specific clause, we should let IAOC handle it.
Andrew: This seems to get back to the "boss of the Internet" idea, and we
should stay away from that.
Leslie: ICANN could do (1) ..., (2) point to our registries, (3) point to our
registries but also run their own new ones. But they should be able to agree to
who is the authoritative copy.
Alissa: We only need bullet number 1.
Eliot: But second bullet is good for the Internet. Developers need to know
where to go, and they go to iana.org. Don't want a name dispute, and this
allows us to avoid a names dispute.
Alissa/Eliot back and forth on this topic.
Andrew: This sounds like we are the boss of the Internet and we do not want to
do that. If there were a dispute and we had to move the IANA function and
iana.org is maintained by someone else, then either people will use the new
registry or they will continue to use the old one that won't interoperate. But
there is no good outcome when the registry is moved in the case of a dispute.
We're only the boss because people use the registries and not the other way
Marc: (as an individual) The registries are part of the protocol specs. We want
them to be closely enough aligned to work together.
Barry: Agree with Andrew. We have a pointer to the IANA registries on the IETF
home page -- we can make it bright and flashy, but that's the best we can do.
We can't prevent multiple copies of the registry.
Leslie: Should we make it clear in the new agreemnt with ICANN that we're only
talking about the IETF protocols and parameters.
Eliot: Am in the rough, so let's not include the second bullet.
Marc: We don't have consensus about the last bullet.
Richard: We don't have consensus but wondering if, as a compromise, we could
ask IAOC whether they want to investigate the issue further.
Eliot: Russ could bring it to the IAOC for comment.
Russ: I can explain what the issue is.
Marc: Strong support for the rest of the slide, but not the last bullet.
= Principles copied verbatim from London =
Russ: Will send these to Eliot.
= Delegation/assignment of registries =
Eliot: Curran's issue -- how do we want to handle names and numbers? Who has
final authority? We should deal with this in names and numbers communities.
Andrei: That question is outside our scope. But we need to define more clearly
what we mean by protocol parameter registries, and what our role is versus the
roles of RIRs. Separate registries for numbers, for example. We should consult
with RIR communities.
Eliot: The way we handle it today is overlap.
Russ: Overlap is with special-use names and numbers. I tried to document which
registries had been delegated to the RIRs. RFC 7020.
Marc: Lots of support for defining the overlap more clearly.
Eliot: Will consult with Russ and put a proposal to the list.
= Who is the customer? =
Eliot: New proposal text about who the customer is.
Richard: s/ICANN/The IANA functions operator/
Russ: And add "and the SLA."
= Clarification of Which Service =
Eliot: Clarify about inclusion of IP address space and names. Will wait to edit
this until delegation/assignment issue above has text to resolve it.
= Editorials =
Eliot: Things to fix.
== Adoption ==
Marc: We have a way forward with the current document. Any disagreement to
adopt this document as a WG document?
Marc: Comments about adoption?
Russ: Do you want -00 posted with no changes or do you want it with changes
Marc: Publish -00 to mirror existing draft. Then changes proposed today will be
Alissa: Can get rid of the RFP preamble.
Some discussion of how to embed RFP in the draft.
Richard: Big thanks to Eliot.
Marc: Thanks, see you in Honolulu.