Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608791A1B8F for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InhGZQHoacmi for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2BF71A1B8D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 36194 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2015 01:59:16 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2015 01:59:16 -0000
Date: 11 Feb 2015 01:58:54 -0000
Message-ID: <20150211015854.4032.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/3rQhyzvVhImgjoQ8UbyT-ciK8XQ>
Cc: mfidelman@meetinghouse.net
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:59:19 -0000

>>> functions are no longer handled by a single operator.  Ideally the 
>>> ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which 
>>> this is decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of 
>>> course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust.

I really don't think it's a good idea to try to solve a problem that
does not yet exist, quite possibly will never exist, and if it does
exist, will doubtless have aspects that haven't yet occurred to us.
(E.g., the gTLD people are still friends with ICANN, the ccTLD and
numbers people aren't, and we parameter weenies are caught in the
middle.)

If it would make CRISP happy, we can say that the IETF trust will
accept the IANA domain name and trademark under mutually acceptable
terms to be negotiated when an if a transfer becomes necessary.  But
don't try to guess the details of what would be going on then.

R's,
John