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

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 7, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Asking for a transfer sounds like a polite thing to do. Directing the IAOC
> to "conclude a supplemental agreement" which "requires the transfer of any
> associated marks and identifiers" - as the -02 text of the document reads
> - sounds to me like an ultimatum which would antagonize other
> stakeholders.

[BA] Since "IANA .org" affects all the communities, this needs to be handled cooperatively. There is a reason why "IANA.org" ownership was not transferred to the IETF Trust when it was created, and so transition planning cannot be something the IAOC handles all by itself. However, the IAOC can work with other communities to come up with a solution. 

> I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to express that the current
> situation (i.e. RFC2860) works today and would likely work in the future.

[BA] RFC 2860 was important not only as a framework that remains useful today but also as an operational model. There is little reason to reopen it.

Milton said:

>> You are just assuming the truth of the exact claim that is under dispute:
>> namely, that asking for transfer of the domain and trademark would lead
>> to some kind of negotiation with ICANN in which unspecified 'bad things'
>> would be demanded in return.
>> 
>> We still don't have any concrete evidence for this claim. We don't even
>> have any idea what kind of 'bad things' are being talked about.

[BA] I do not worry about asking for ICANN to agree to maintain transition arrangements it previously agreed to in the plan filed with NTIA. However, one can argue that the Domain and trademark relate to all functions and so all communities should have a say in the transition plan.