Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Dan Schlitt <> Mon, 09 February 2015 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4853D1A1B2C for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpUU7W6RmjSm for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF06D1A1B6B for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19H9HZx012410; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:19 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19H99f71835868; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (schlitt@localhost) by (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id t19H99tp1837811; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: schlitt owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:04 -0500
From: Dan Schlitt <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:10:09 -0000

I did not comment during the earlier discussion. Just keeping up with 
all the postings was hard. By the time I caught up and was ready to 
voice my opinion others had already made the point better than I.

Dave and Andrew state well the conclusion I came to. It would be a good 
outcome if the ownership was transfered but not worth a fight with the 
current owner. I didn't view ICAN as an opponent in this transition as 
it seems others did. I thought it could be an act of good will if the 
ownership of the names was just voluntarily transfered with out the fuss 
of putting it in transition documents. All the legal argumentation that 
took place in the WG was really beside the point.



Dan Schlitt

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:34:07AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> I took the earlier IANAPlan discussion as deciding that ownership of the
>> name was not worth a possibly contentious process, rather than an IETF
>> desire not to hold the name.
> That was how I took the earlier discussion too.  I will also say that,
> in my own case, my opposition to adding and the IANA trade
> mark to our list of transitions must haves was exactly, "Not worth a
> possibly contentious process."  I think we should not bargain for such
> a change, because I don't think it gives us anything that would be
> worth giving anything up for.  But if someone else wants to engage in
> such bargaining, I think the IETF Trust is a fine place for the name
> or trademark or both to land.
> A