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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Better deal with confrontation now, when NTIA is still in the picture, 
and when there really isn't any time pressure to deal with (if things 
drag out, or if NTIA isn't satisfied, they'll just extend the contract).

The whole point of clearly defined contract documents is to avoid 
conflict at times when time IS a problem - such as in the eventuality 
that IETF, or one of the other players, decides that they have to cancel 
(or threaten to cancel) their contracts with ICANN.

Better conflict now, during negotiations over the transition, than later 
- when unclear language can really cause negative impact on Internet 
operations.

Miles Fidelman

Peterson, Jon wrote:
> Insisting on the transfer of domains, marks, and identifiers to ourselves
> is not likely to prevent the contingencies we're concerned about - it is
> more likely to precipitate them, by turning this process into a
> confrontation. I think we would need a very different mandate as an
> organization to take this step. It is both reckless and unnecessary.
>
>
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
>
> On 11/4/14, 4:21 AM, "Miles Fidelman" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Agree.  Specificity is as important in contractual language as it is in
>> a protocol spec.  Lack of clarity would only prolong conflict (e.g.,
>> litigation) if this clause ever has to be executed.  I'd go further, and
>> explicitly add "including registration of the iana.org domain" to the
>> language.
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>> Richard Hill wrote:
>>> Thank you for this, but I still prefer the language that I proposed in
>>> my
>>> previous message, that is:
>>>
>>> "2.  results in the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>>> the
>>> IETF Trust, with the understanding that current and subsequent
>>> operators of
>>> the IANA function shall be allowed to use them free of charge."
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Alissa
>>>> Cooper
>>>> Sent: mardi, 4. novembre 2014 02:27
>>>> To: Eliot Lear
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Andrew Sullivan
>>>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
>>>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eliot,
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/14, 5:12 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Eliot,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest that if
>>>>>>> the IETF/IAB or IETF trust takes control of the name, it do
>>>> so with the
>>>>>>> understanding that it take responsibility for seeing that backward
>>>>>>> compatibility continue for each customer (names, numbers, protocol
>>>>>>> parameters, in particular) for so long as it is safe to do so.  If
>>>>>>> someone else wants to take control of the name, they should make
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> same promise.
>>>>>> This is so close to the language that I suggested that it¹s
>>>> hard for me to tell the difference between what you¹re suggesting
>>>> and what I suggested. To state the above requirement concisely:
>>>>>> "Whoever owns the marks and identifiers has responsibility for
>>>> ensuring backwards compatibility in the event that IANA
>>>> operations shift to different entit(ies).²
>>>>>> The requirement is that the owner of the marks/identifiers has
>>>> to enable a smooth transition of the operations ‹ regardless of
>>>> whether the marks owner is the same as the operator or different
>>>> or if there are multiple operators. Because the current owner is
>>>> ICANN, this requirement would fall on ICANN.
>>>>>> I would be satisfied if we substitute the above requirement in
>>>> place of the one currently in the draft about the transfer of
>>>> marks and identifiers. Do I read your email correctly that you
>>>> would be satisfied as well?
>>>>> Very much so!!
>>>> Cool. So I would suggest something like this:
>>>>
>>>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>>>>      to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>>>>      agreement that-
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>      2.  requires the owner of any associated marks and identifiers
>>>> to ensure backwards compatibility with subsequent operators.²
>>>>
>>>> Alissa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eliot
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>> -- 
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


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