last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>
2014-12-18 18:53:43 GMT
This is a summary of the last call and conclusion from the IESG processing of this draft.
This document has attained rough consensus of the IETF Working Group and of the IETF community as a whole, as
judged first by the chairs and then by the sponsoring Area Director, and then by the IESG in accordance with
RFC 2026 in the December 18 IESG telechat. The IESG has approved the draft, although the formal approval
will be a few days away to make sure the new version did not miss anything. If you see an issue that has been
missed or change that is not correctly implemented, please report it to us by Dec 29, 2014.
Over the course of the development of the document, several suggestions were raised that did not enjoy
sufficient support to be included. Two main ones worth mentioning include
• A suggestion for a stronger statement over what terms the IAOC should negotiate.
• A suggestion that "iana.org" and other associated marks be transferred to the IETF trust.
At the end of the working group process, although there was not unanimous support for the results, the
working group chairs concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. The document
shepherd’s summary of the WG consensus for this document can be found here:
During IETF last call, additional people voiced support for the document. There were several editorial
comments that resulted in changes, as well as some discussion of more substantial comments some of which
resulted in text changes. There was some discussion of comments already discussed earlier in the
process, and but no new objections were raised during the IETF last call. A summary of the last call
comments can be found from the end of this e-mail.
A new draft version has been prepared by the editors per discussions on the mailing list and with the
sponsoring AD. The new draft version and associated changes can be found here:
However, a further version will be soon forthcoming with also (a) suggested text from IAB added to Section 5
and (b) description of how and what level of consensus the draft reached.
During the IETF last call and IESG evaluation, the following points were made:
• Positive evaluation from Christer Holmberg, Melinda Shore, Alissa Cooper, Richard Barnes, and Ted
Lemon. Currently, there is a Yes position from 12 Area Directors.
• Editorial comments from Brian Carpenter, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick, Adrian Farrell, Spencer
Dawkins, Alissa Cooper, Alia Atlas, Richard Barnes, and Christer Holmberg. These have resulted in text changes.
• A comment from Pete Resnick around the use of full text from IETF mission statement RFC. This has
resulted in a text change.
• A comment from Sean Turner about some missing parts in the response. This has resulted in text changes.
• Agreement with the general message, but a question and a concern from John Levine around roles in
policy disputes, and contracts in case of changes in who is the IANA operator. These were resolved through
discussion with Eliot Leor, Brian Carpenter, and Jari Arkko. This resulted in text changes.
• Discussion on the availability of text for Section 5 and how that can be handled process-wise, started
by Adrian Farrell. Suggested resolution is to use the text that IAB wants to indicate, "The IAB supports
the response in this document". The text is now out in the working group list, which it was not before. A new
document version is needed to add this text.
• Discussion on the role of the document after IESG approval, and whether the goal was to get IESG review
or approval. The sponsoring AD believes that it is important to use our normal approval process, and
ensure that the IESG agrees with the consensus assessments in this case. Whether the document gets
published as an RFC or not is somewhat immaterial, because the main purpose of providing an IETF view on the
matter is to collect several views together from different organisations to gather a complete
• Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc
Blanchet, Andrew Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, John Curran, and Jefsey).
Richard was requesting a rationale for why the conclusion was what it was, or perhaps rather disagreeing
with the rationale that was provided.
• Recommendation to the IAOC to create stronger supplemental or replacement agreements between the
IETF and ICANN, by Milton Muller and the Internet Governance Project. The recommendation recognises the
rough consensus behind the current proposal that specifies requirements but does not call out explicit
agreement mechanisms, but suggests that the stronger agreements would be extremely significant. The
recommendation goes on to "provide information to the IETF's leadership regarding what the unresolved
issues were, why it is important to resolve them, and how it might respond to them with supplemental
agreements". The recommendation also states that the advocated actions are in line with the current
IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these
recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however. The WG consensus did not agree
with the recommendations.
• Jefsey has noted that he intends to file a future appeal on this topic, around the responsibilities of
the IETF and RFC 6852. Jefsey notes "My point will not be to change it, but to make sure that the IESG, and IAB,
and ISOC, fully and publicly declare that they understand, accept and decide that this is what they mean."
It is not clear that there is anything to do about this at the moment, particularly when at least the
sponsoring AD does not understand the provided feedback; this is an IETF document that will, as it gains
approval, will have been processed by the IESG and will explicitly note that the IAB supports the
described transition. Response by Andrew Sullivan on December 15 indicates that he does not believe any
changes to the document or the summaries produced by the WG officials were necessary.
• The IAOC has indicated that they are comfortable with the direction the document gives for the IAOC.
Jari Arkko, the sponsoring Area Director for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response