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

Jefsey <> Wed, 06 May 2015 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550FF1A90FB for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.734
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QAPJBa5jUI_w for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5044C1B2A5B for <>; Wed, 6 May 2015 03:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:46277 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1Ypwjg-0006Bb-TW; Wed, 06 May 2015 03:39:29 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 12:39:22 +0200
To: John Levine <>,
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <20150505135755.41943.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <> <20150505135755.41943.qmail@ary.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
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: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:39:31 -0000

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


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
>Ianaplan mailing list