Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG

Jefsey <> Mon, 16 February 2015 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F951A1B61 for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ri00aW90Qcdp for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018021A1B54 for <>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:33930 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YNOup-0005s7-GP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:52:59 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:52:49 +0100
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <>, "" <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
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
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus? 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, 16 Feb 2015 16:53:02 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 17:03 16/02/2015, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>There seems to be general agreement that there is not an 
>incompatibility between the RIR proposal requirement and the IETF's 
>proposal.  We would like to determine if there is consensus on the 
>following points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015:
>     With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, 
> both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a 
> particular IANA Numbering Services Operator.


>     The IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate 
> for holding the trademark and domain.

Due to the post-RFC 6852 implicit fork, this seems consistent with 
the WG/IANAPLAN consensus (I abstain).

>     The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the 
> IANA mark, and domain in behalf of the Internet community.

This wording should be corrected as "in behalf of the IETF community" 
(or this part to be removed) for multiple reasons including that:
* the IETF Trust is only concerned by IETF rights
* ICANN (or its successor) and its possible allies belong to the 
Internet community. In case of disagreement with the current operator 
(this is the case we consider) this wording would mean that the 
current operator is actually a legitimate co-owner of the domain name,