Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

I agree with John. Indeed, I don't see how anyone could disagree. 

The IANA.org domain and the trademark, which could legally restrict usage of that term by anyone other than ICANN, is both an overlap (in that all 3 communities rely on it currently) and an interdependency (in that any individual community's decision to change their IANA functions operator would affect another if they were all linked in some way to the IANA name or domain).

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The ICG RFP asks:
> 
> " · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
> communities.
> If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity beyond
> the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe them
> here. In this case please also describe how the service or activity
> should be addressed by the transition plan."
> 
> To the extent that the IETF community presently relies upon the
> "iana.org" domain name and/or makes use of the IANA mark, I do
> believe that should be noted in the IETF's ICG RFP response.
> 
> One can note it along with a comment that says "To be worked out", or
> "lack of coordination would be bad", or even no suggestion at all with
> respect to the proposed transition plan; it's only the failure to mention
> it at all that would be a material omission on the part of the IETF.
> 
> /John
>