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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> Jon -
>>
>>    I have no view on whether the IETF should assert any position with
>>    respect to intended future use of the IANA marks or domain name (and
>>    do understand how asserting a position, absent constructive
>> engagement,
>>    could be misunderstood by others in the stewardship transition planning
>>    process.)
>>
>>    However, I cannot tell if you are also against any mention of the
>> IETF's
>>    _present and existing use_ of the IANA marks and domain name in the
>> ICG
>>    RFP response...  could you opine specifically on this question?
> I'm totally fine with detailing the IETF's present and existing use of the
> IANA - we would be kind of missing the point of the questionnaire if we
> didn't. And I think it would be great if that relationship continued along
> past lines. I am only pushing back against the notion that this IETF
> response to the ICG should take some ideological or "moral" stance about
> the ownership of domains or trademarks. I believe the justifications
> offered in support of this move both misunderstand and endanger the role
> of the IETF.
>
>

Speaking just or myself - I am purely interested in the practicalities 
of the matter regarding operational control of the iana.org domain, and 
editorial control of intellectual property associated with performing 
the IANA functions.

More specifically, I'm concerned with avoiding any confusion or 
operational disruption in the event of future conflicts among the 
parties involved in oversight, management, and/or performance of the 
IANA functions - particularly in the case where a transition of 
contractor might occur on less then friendly terms.

Under such situations, it seems at least possible, if not likely, that 
litigation might ensue and/or that parties might operate competing 
registries - causing operational confusion at a minimum, and possibly 
more serious disruptions to smooth operation of the net.

 From my perspective, it seems that placing ownership/legal control of 
IANA intellectual property, including registration of the iana.org 
domain, in the hands of a party other than the incumbent contractor, 
seems like the mechanism least subject to disruption in the event of a 
transition.  Whether that party is the IETF Trust, a joint entity 
created by the major stakeholding organizations, or something else, is 
less important - the IETF Trust has the advantage of being an existing 
entity, but that is solely a matter of convenience.

None of this has nothing to do with ideology or morality - other than, 
perhaps, a strong belief in outside accountability measures that have 
teeth, which, one could argue has both ideological and moral components.

Respectfully,

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra