Skip to main content

Minutes for IANAPLAN at interim-2015-ianaplan-1
minutes-interim-2015-ianaplan-1-2

Meeting Minutes Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (ianaplan) WG
Title Minutes for IANAPLAN at interim-2015-ianaplan-1
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2015-08-21

minutes-interim-2015-ianaplan-1-2
IANAPLAN WG Virtual Interim meeting notes
August 21st 9h00 Eastern
Via Webex

(attendees list at the end)

Marc Blanchet convened the meeting at 9:00am EDT.

Materials were made available on the IETF proceedings site.

Leslie Daigle then proceeded with an introduction.

Note well was presented.

Eliot scribed.

Agenda was presented, and no bashes were requested.

Very brief introductory remarks from Leslie.  And then Jari...

Jari then reviewed how we got to this point.

Jari stressed the need for people to make public comments on the ICG's combined
proposal.  The comment period closes on September 8th.

Jari mentioned that the IAB and/or the IANA Program will be transmitting
comments on the accountability component.

Jari noted that we should keep our discussion today bounded to what touches the
IETF.

Jari mentioned We should not worry either about implementation phase right now.

SLA is on hold until the transition is approved.  This due to the other side
and some perception issues.  In the meantime the current SLA applies.

Jari then went into a discussion about IPR arrangements, and Jari reminded the
WG that we did not say anything particular about IPR, but the CRISP team did. 
But we then went on to state to the ICG that we would find the Trust use
acceptable.  Then this was run by the names community (CWG).  Jari's
interpretation is that the CWG is mostly aligned with CRISP on this.  Details
need to be worked out.  The board has made a statement regarding this,
expressing that they're okay with such a transfer so long as they are able to
make use of the domain/trademark as the IFO.

Jari then almost brought it home: does the ICG proposal work for us?

He then briefly discussed this proposed new entity, the PTI.

There is also a discussion about new proposed oversight mechanisms, and the
current thinking on the part of the program and the IAB is that the existing
mechanisms are sufficient.

Next Andrew Sullivan

Andrew mentioned that the IAB Program is working on responses, but they're not
quite done.  Andrew also encouraged everyone to read both the ICG and
Accountability proposals and to comment.

Next: Russ Housley (IANA Program Lead)

No additional comments.

Next: Alissa Cooper (ICG Co-Chair)

Eliot:

Suggested that we send a note of support, with point about tracking the two
transition points.

Andrew was concerned about not having seen text.

Jari suggested that this be done by the IANA program.

Leslie suggested that we could put a few sentences together (maybe one or two)
to be included in whatever response the IAB sends on behalf of the IETF.

We then live edited some text.  We converged on the following text:

    The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
    forward.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in
    Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in
    Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.

Marc then asked for confirmation of support.  Four or five people supported. 
Nobody opposed.

Marc said that he would confirm this text on the mailing list.

Jari didn't have a strong opinion about how the message is carried.

Eliot wanted it clear that there was working group consensus on the text.

Leslie: agreed with Eliot on that point, but we may not want to have multiple
voices from the IETF speaking. In addition, she reiterated that this should not
take away individual contributions.

Resolution from the AD: just send it along encapsulated in the IAB note.

Andrew raised a concern that if the IAB had different comments.  Leslie was
concerned that this would be perceived as conflict within the IETF house. Let
the IAB message explain the consistency/differences.

Jari: IAB may say additional things.  But wouldn't worry about the case where
the IAB disagrees completely.

Andrew: is sensitive to the possibility that if the IAB changes any text, the
wg would be justifiably annoyed.

Alissa: agrees with Jari.  The ICG has two people from the IETF and two from
the IAB.  And many people get the difference between the two organization.  The
cleanest way to do this should be sent as a public comment. The IAB has broader
responsibilities.

Marc wanted to confirm consensus on a separate message.

Nobody objected.

AOB

None.

======
Attendees list (from webex identifications)

Alain Durand
Alissa Cooper
Andrew Sullivan
Avri Doria
Barry Leiba
Eliot Lear
Gleen Deen
Grace Abuhamad
Greg Wood
Janvier Ngnoulaye
Jari Arkko
John Levine
Jonne Soininen
Karen Mulberry
Olaf Kolkman
Leslie Daigle
Lynn St.Amour
Marc Blanchet
Peter Koch
Russ Housley
Samuel Weiler
Susan Hares