ianaplan - Friday, August 21, 2015

ianaplan

ianaplan@jabber.ietf.org

Friday, August 21, 2015< ^ >

Dan York has set the subject to: IANAPLAN at IETF91

Room Configuration

Room Occupants

GMT+0
[13:01:32] Barry Leiba joins the room
[13:03:33] wood joins the room
[13:04:24] John Levine joins the room
[13:05:17] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[13:05:25] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[13:05:27] Eliot Lear joins the room
[13:05:36] <Eliot Lear> good morning/afternoon
[13:05:51] <Andrew Sullivan> I _hope_ we don't have 2 hours of stuff to say on this call.  It's not an ICANN session :P
[13:06:35] Leslie Daigle joins the room
[13:07:37] <Leslie Daigle> As Eliot shared in the Webex chat, he is taking notes here:  http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/ianaplan-21aug2015minutes
[13:07:44] <Leslie Daigle> (And, thanks Eliot!)
[13:15:17] <Andrew Sullivan> what Jari was just talking about is not "trademark use" any more than "I have tickets to Disneyworld" is trademark use.
[13:24:32] <Andrew Sullivan> the hand is at the bottom of the participant list, next to the "audio" button
[13:27:12] Jari Arkko joins the room
[13:27:19] marc.blanchet.qc joins the room
[13:27:24] <Eliot Lear> I support the draft ICG proposal going forward with a caveat.  The IETF
stated two points that are desired as part of the transition.  You
reiterated this in your June email to the ICG.  The ICG correctly calls
out these points in the summary, but then does not list them in the
transition section.  That may be entirely correct, or it may be an
oversight, depending on whether they have already been addressed.
[13:27:56] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[13:29:37] <Jari Arkko> i'm supportive of both first and second sentences. I believe the second sentence could be shorter and more self contained, though.
[13:29:46] <Eliot Lear> The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward.  The WG requests that the two points we raised in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt be listed in Section V of the ICG proposal.
[13:30:22] <Jari Arkko> thats much better. i'd probably say s/requests/suggests/
[13:30:35] <Alissa Cooper> I would suggest "Part 0, Section V" in sentence 2.
[13:30:49] st.amour@jabber.org joins the room
[13:31:23] <Andrew Sullivan> Could I see the whole thing, please?  I don't know what I'm agreeing to (sorry, I don't work well between hearing and reading)
[13:31:33] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[13:31:34] <Eliot Lear> Ok.  whole thing coming
[13:31:39] Peter Koch joins the room
[13:32:01] wood leaves the room
[13:32:18] wood joins the room
[13:32:27] Russ Housley joins the room
[13:32:31] <Eliot Lear> The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward.  We had requested in our submission to the ICG that two matters be addressed:
[13:32:41] <Eliot Lear>   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.
[13:33:21] <Eliot Lear> We request that these points be mentioned in Part 0, Section V of the ICG proposal.
[13:33:23] <Jari Arkko> reference please
[13:33:54] <Eliot Lear> We request that these points be mentioned in Part 0, Section V (paragraph 3062) of the ICG proposal.
[13:34:07] avri joins the room
[13:34:13] <Peter Koch> Should we clarify that "PTI"  != "subsequent operator"?
[13:34:56] <Alissa Cooper> sorry, para 3062 is the one that has the two bullet points from the IETF
[13:34:57] <Eliot Lear> The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward. We had requested in our submission to the ICG that two matters be addressed:
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 <http://iana.org/>.
We request that these points be mentioned in Part 0, Section V (paragraph 3062) of the ICG proposal.
[13:37:52] <Eliot Lear> The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward.  These points are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  WE would ask that they be referenced in Port 0 Section 5 of the proposal as well.
[13:38:27] <Alissa Cooper> s/Port 0 Section 5/Part 0, Section V/
[13:38:35] <Leslie Daigle> Port hahaha
[13:38:44] <Alissa Cooper> proposal is here if people want to check the para number: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-proposal-EN.pdf
[13:39:03] <Alissa Cooper> live editing is the pits! :)
[13:39:24] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[13:39:33] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[13:39:40] <Eliot Lear> 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 5 of the proposal as well.
[13:39:53] <Jari Arkko> i can confirm the paragraph #
[13:39:53] <Barry Leiba> looks good
[13:40:13] <Alissa Cooper> s/Section 5/Section V/ for avoidance of doubt
[13:40:52] wood leaves the room
[13:41:01] <Eliot Lear> 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.
[13:41:48] <John Levine> ok by me
[13:41:52] Greg Wood joins the room
[13:55:37] <Olaf Kolkman> Noppe..
[13:55:37] <Olaf Kolkman> Thanks!
[13:56:13] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[13:57:24] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[13:59:07] Leslie Daigle leaves the room
[13:59:17] st.amour@jabber.org leaves the room
[14:02:42] Peter Koch leaves the room
[14:24:35] wood joins the room
[14:24:42] Greg Wood leaves the room
[14:25:18] wood leaves the room
[14:42:39] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[15:01:54] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[16:26:00] Olaf Kolkman leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[16:53:25] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[17:21:34] John Levine leaves the room
[17:48:08] Jari Arkko joins the room
[17:55:31] Russ Housley leaves the room
[18:22:11] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[19:00:00] Olaf Kolkman leaves the room
[19:00:02] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[19:02:15] Olaf Kolkman leaves the room
[19:35:17] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[20:42:57] Olaf Kolkman leaves the room
[20:56:29] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[21:34:17] Jari Arkko leaves the room