Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

I frankly have difficulties understanding why the IAB does not only 
accept calls on  http://iana.arpa and reroute them to 
http://iana.org, so progressively in RFCs and in use, the 
Internet/IETF/TCP/IP issues are accessed via iana.arpa which can be 
rerouted to any other operator.  This way nobody gives a damn if 
ICANN keeps "iana.org" for ever. And a dispute about http://iana.arpa 
is a dispute over TLD ownership.

Today there is no procedure for a TLD dispute. This is one of the 
points I wish to cover in the "FL" (Free/Libre) CLASS 
experimentation. However, I think such a common interest 
experimentation would be confusing is the IETF and ICANN have not 
stabilized their agreement over the IANA, the same for ICANN and 
Versign agreement, and for ICANN relations with the various RFC 6852 
global communities.

jfc

At 15:57 05/05/2015, John Levine wrote:
>My recollection (check the archives of the ianaplan list) is that
>while we saw no reason not to transfer the IANA trademark and domain
>name to the IETF Trust, there were more important issues.  Or to look
>at it from the other direction, if the situation with some insane
>son-of-ICANN got so bad that there were competing protocol or address
>registries, the name of the web site would be the least of our
>problems.
>
>R's,
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan