Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

"Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> Mon, 09 February 2015 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494E91A88A4 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEe-cmoADUUA for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F86F1A884E for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0078666.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t19KDUbR001246; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:14:45 -0500
Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1sesfgsdyb-2 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:14:44 -0500
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.97]) by stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:14:41 -0500
From: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
Thread-Index: AQHQRC1Pr46Ntk96LEyczav+CTeNyJzod1CAgAA/EoCAAAPbgIAABKIAgAAbPYCAAAVxAIAAAYIAgAAEjYCAAARhgIAAAOCAgAAlVoD//387AA==
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:14:41 +0000
Message-ID: <D0FE5117.147598%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <AC790ADC-C4CC-4D8E-B11A-138FF58D6D8D@standardstrack.com> <CFB653FB-B10A-44E4-9E75-8FCD011F7B7C@isoc.org> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807
x-originating-ip: [192.168.128.80]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <2935888523DF2D47AA0FFE7AC9730B5A@neustar.biz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7707 signatures=670626
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=4.7993609086916e-11 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=0 compositescore=0.993311949948012 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.993311949948012 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 rbsscore=0.993311949948012 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1502090199
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BUKLSHpR42y0Vs52EkbAlIJ73Lk>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:14:54 -0000

>A side note: since the beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF,
>the IETF's assent is presumably requuired.

As I've been reading this thread this morning, I've kind of been wondering
about the same thing.

I do think we would need a more formal decision that the IETF feels it
would be appropriate for the Trust to take responsibility for IANA's
trademark and domains. I mean, in general, of course we should be happy to
provide functions that are in keeping with our core mission of making the
Internet better, and there's some historical precedent here. But a lot has
changed since those historical times: clearly this function has become
extremely politicized and with that comes a lot of baggage that I worry
could weigh us down. The Trust exists to own some specific assets, and I'd
be hesitant to alter its scope, or to make the assets it owns share fate
with more contentious properties.

What do we imagine the responsibility we'd be taking on here, as the Trust
and the IETF, might actually look like? And are there alternatives, like
forming an independent IANA Trust, that we should consider before we
signal that we're open to this path?

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

>
>   Brian
>
>> 
>> ray
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
>>>> I¹m not comfortable with that wording.  The IETF Trust is an
>>>>independent body
>>>> with its own processes and limits.  Thus ³The IETF is willing to have
>>>>the IETF
>>>> Trust holdŠ²  I find troublesome.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when
>>>>there is 
>>>> an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ray,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.  Point taken.
>>>
>>> The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the ISTCG/IETF
>>> side of things usefully.
>>>
>>>
>>> So again, perhaps a conjunction set:
>>>
>>>    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.
>>>
>>>    The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the
>>> IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community.
>>>
>>> d/
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dave Crocker
>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>> bbiw.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>Ianaplan@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan