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

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Please see my comments below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: mercredi, 5. novembre 2014 16:49
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:16:38PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Miles's argument and logic seem unassailable to me.
>
> Really?  Ok, let me assail them.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > My point exactly.  Given that this is a community process,
> the content of
> > > which is primarily organizational, legal, and contractual in
> nature; should not
> > > the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the lawyers be heavily involved in
> this discussion;
> > > not brought in after the fact?
>
> The IETF Trust has nothing to do with this, yet, because despite what
> some people keep saying there are, as yet, no assets for the Trust to
> control.

Correct.  The question that we are discussing is whether we should ask the
IETF Trust to control (1) the mark IANA and (2) the domain name IANA.ORG.
And maybe other intellectual property.

> The plan is to ask that there be no copyright on the
> contents of the registries -- public domain -- so the Trust doesn't
> have anything to hold.  And by my reckoning, there is as yet no
> consensus to ask for iana.org or the IANA trademark.

Correct.  We are discussing the matter.

>
> The IAOC _is_ participating here, since Russ (by virtue of his
> position as IAB chair) is on the IAOC and has said some things.  I
> haven't looked at the list membership to see whether there are others
> on the IAOC who are paying attention to this discussion.
>
> "The lawyers" is not a very big class (last I checked, Jorge is still
> one person); and anyway, we normally do not involve the IETF Counsel
> directly in the terms of discussion until we know what problem we
> think we're solving.  I also know that some members of the IAB have in
> fact asked for specific advice on specific topics, so it's not like
> the work is proceeding without any guidance.  But we need to know what
> we want before we ask for legal advice, I suggest, and it's not clear
> to me that everyone is yet pulling in the same direction, even
> roughly.

Indeed.  In my view, this group should formulate a clear requirement, after
which the appropriate legal counsel can figure out (1) whether it can be
fulfilled and (2) if so, how.

>
> > > Treating this proposal as an engineering issue, addressed in
> the way that
> > > we'd address engineering issues, IMHO, is broken.  There are
> a whole slew of
> > > issues that are central to this process that some wish to
> deny, others wish to
> > > ignore, others feel are out of scope, and that we are largely
> unequipped to
> > > address (yes, some of us work more in the policy and
> regulatory worlds, and
> > > some of us negotiate contracts at times - but we're all
> primarily amateurs --
> > > at least I don't think we've had any lawyers in the discussion).
>
> Certainly there are issues that some people keep claiming are central
> to the process; whether they are central _for the IETF_ seems not to
> be quite so obvious.

Let's say that we have differing points of view.

>I resent the suggestion that those of us who
> disagree either "wish to deny" or "wish to ignore": it could be that
> we just disagree with those who think they're central.

Yes.

>  For my part, I
> have in fact thought about these issues for some time, and there are
> things that people keep saying are central that I believe to be
> distractions.  The most obvious of these is, I think, the IANA
> trademark and iana.org domain name, which I regard as nice to have but
> by no means central.

I believe that we all understand each other's positions, we just don't
agree.

>There are also claims about oversight and
> assertions of authority that I simply don't believe in: I think the
> only reason the IETF's stuff is "the standard" is because people
> believe that.  It's like fiat money.  Claiming that there's a
> government behind it is what people do, but that's not what makes the
> money worth anything.  Ask people in Argentina.

I agree with that, but that's not, to me, the issue.  The issue is whether
we should take steps to ensure that a possible future transition goes
smoothly, by working out in advance what happens to certain things. For
example, I think we agree that the data should be in the public domain.

In addition, some of us think that something should be said abouot the mark
and the domain name.

>
> > > Again, IMHO, this will ultimately lead to an ineffective
> proposal to the ICG,
> > > and to poor results down the road (for some value of poor).
>
> I guess I don't know what an "effective" proposal to the ICG is.
> Perhaps I could be enlightened.  If it's just another word for, "One
> that asserts all the aforementioned authority," however, then I think
> that's a persuasive definition of "effective".
>
> The only poor results that I've heard forecast so far have two types:
> 1. someone else gets iana.org and publishes a "competing" registry;
> 2. people (perhaps governments) try to assert some other locus of
> control of protocols and standards.  Have I missed anything?

Yes.  For me, the main problem is that, if for some reason IETF decides to
move the IANA function, ICANN, for perfectly legitimate reasons of its own,
may decide to retain the IANA mark and the IANA.ORG domain name.  Then IETF
has to use a different mark and domain name.  As you say, doable, but, in my
view, a hassle that can be avoided by taking steps now.

>
> On (1), I think it would be bad but, as I have already argued (so
> won't rehearse), there is nothing we could do about that if it
> happened.
>
> On (2), we already have this problem -- indeed, have had since TCP/IP
> was being conceived -- and the way that we continue to be successful
> against such things is to produce standards that interoperate better,
> that are easier to implement, and that are widely accepted and used.
> There are certainly annoyances -- the fact that IETF standards are not
> "official" means that in some countries they can't be referred to in
> procurement documents.  We should doubtless undertake efforts to solve
> that, but the only way that we'll be successful is co-operatively with
> the relevant governments.  Governments who _don't_ want that will
> always find some excuse, and we can't do anything about that except
> produce something that is so much better than the alternative that
> everyone wants to use it.
>
> > > At the very least, should not the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the
> lawyers be directly
> > > informing this discussion by providing guidance, review, and
> comment to the
> > > larger group, as we move toward a final proposal?
>
> See above.
>
> > Right now, we're
> > > debating things like the handling of iana.org
>
> No, right now some people are militating for us to assert a unilateral
> right to an asset of a corporation.

As noted by others, it is not clear why ICANN took unilateral control of
those assets.  And, anyway, everything that happened up to now happened with
the blessing of NTIA, and NTIA has asked us to figure out how to proceed in
the future.

So a different arrangement of the intellectual property is something that
appears to me to be legitimate to envisage.

And, as noted above, there seems to be agreement that the actual data should
be in the public domain.  That is also an assertion regarding the assets of
a corporation.

>I don't need legal advice to
> understand whether that is a reasonable position to take.  It _does_
> seem to me that perhaps the current holder of those assets may have an
> opinion on it, which is why it is worth asking about on this list.

Again, I'm confused.  ICANN is the current holder of those assets.  NTIA has
asked ICANN to convene a process to figure out how to transition the IANA
Function. ICANN has charterd the ICG to do that, and the ICG has asked
groups (including this group) to do that.

So this group is ICANN, for the purposes of the transition.

The transition may involve the assets in question.  So, in effect, ICANN
will be presenting a proposal to NTIA regarding what it wants to do with the
assets in question.

Where's the problem?

>
> > >, whether it's important to
> > > include reference in the proposal
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this.  Which reference?
>
> > > , and what kind of contractual language to
> > > use
>
> None.  Our charter says, "The WG will identify, but not create, such
> required agreements."  Also,
>
>   Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator
>   of IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms of
>   agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
>   to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt
>   to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will
>   request the IAB or IAOC to provide them separately.
>
> This is precisely the point Alissa was making about the request to the
> IAOC that is in the current I-D.
>
> Assailingly yours,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>