Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
>
> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed.
>>
>> In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a 
>> recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain.  There is the 
>> issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA 
>> 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.
>

Why is this such a  big deal?  We're talking about A web server, with 
redirects for different portions of the site, to the various 
organizations that the IANA functions have been divied up to.

One big theme, when discussing why the IETF should not care about the 
domain was that there were technical workarounds - i.e., using a 
different domain name for the IETF portion of the IANA functions. THAT 
would be a right royal pain.  This is a case where a simple, technical 
fix, works just fine.

How about some simple language, along the lines of:

"The IETF Trust will provide a web server that contains one 
informational home page, and redirects all other traffic to sites 
maintained by the organizations currently delegated the various IANA 
functions.  The IETF Trust will license the use of appropriate 
trademarks to organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions."

Done.

Miles Fidelman


Miles Fidelman

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