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

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

Have been following the discussions and it's been quite interesting; much
more interesting that it almost seem iana.org ownership is the deciding
factor in this process[1]. The extent of back and fourth deliberation on
the list, makes me wanna mention here that it will be good for IETF to
start handling/addressing issues not only as a protocol parameter community
but as the overall source of all the whole function.
For all it's worth, those who don't want to complicate the outcome of this
process have great hope in IETF playing a leadership role in all these. I
am beginning to wonder if this is the case.

Thanks.

Returning back to listening mode. ;)

Cheers!
1. Which IMO should just be a minimal component in this process especially
as ntia is not the owner of the domain in the first place.
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Nov 2014 21:26, "Milton L Mueller" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > Asking for a transfer sounds like a polite thing to do. Directing the
> IAOC to
> > "conclude a supplemental agreement" which "requires the transfer of any
> > associated marks and identifiers" - as the -02 text of the document reads
> > - sounds to me like an ultimatum which would antagonize other
> > stakeholders.
>
> OK. I see the difference in the attitude with which we approach this. I am
> beginning to think it is a purely attitudinal matter and not all that
> substantive. So I have more sympathy for your position now but I still
> think you are focusing on the wrong things.
>
> A request to the IAOC to "conclude an agreement" that "requires the
> transfer" is not an "ultimatum" it is a proposal for a rather impersonal
> set of institutional changes that sets the stage for long-term
> accountability improvements in Internet governance.
>
> To put it more concretely, we are not talking to "nice people" sitting
> across the dinner table from us, asking them to pass the salt. We are
> trying to set the parameters for long term interactions among impersonal
> organizational entities and functions.
>
> So if I were you I would focus on whether it is a good idea - for the
> general good of the Internet and for the IETF - for to have control of the
> iana.org domain and the trademark in the hands of the IETF trust or
> whether it is better for the public and the IETF to have it in the hands of
> ICANN. That's all that matters. The purpose of this exercise is to
> rearrange the institutional design to accommodate the withdrawal of the
> NTIA. The purpose is not to be polite or nice, or to avoid offending
> anyone. The purpose is to get it right.
>
> If you sincerely believe that IETF should be permanently locked in to
> ICANN as IANA provider, should have no choice as to who performs those
> functions for it, and therefore the marks and domain should stay with
> ICANN, then fine. Please argue that position. I will engage with those
> arguments respectfully. But please let's not argue about etiquette!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>