[Ianaplan] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 17 February 2015 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1554A1A90ED for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-8HXe977_kC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43FAA1A90EF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B213A20A99 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:04 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:date:references:to :message-id:mime-version; s=mesmtp; bh=u7rvPa/ov7IC+pseo5F/YhrzO yo=; b=TDvqnqCFXG+hMloaRTr+43r8i7tZbkox0gHCRamEHusFt4fYgYzsn43nn 8CuiTpoik79rWeEqypiDiXdJXESMZ0olTn8T0Y/sOYEy13XS0GUwXpnnea/stm3B B5Fp1elQk6F3qjsXcTPGdVNhZrgPmHLZxnbndTmslnDFQo14F8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:date :references:to:message-id:mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=u7rvPa/ov7 IC+pseo5F/YhrzOyo=; b=ohQFnVXTkJqbCTUkGFBqqDgOTd/XQnjssx6/jXvPSW mTvResNDpLUWZPL6bIWXnWZgkZlErf2Oclvklpuot3l5Nsm75czxMfvLvPyY9d4i v/Ntw8i72PEgQHd3FoKwBFXLL0DZfLgq98RhQWEULSLZEGMmHBqzsgMeFGx1keYA s=
X-Sasl-enc: jVeZ6JhOpodszQqzsxNVztefWjZ5EpZBKLApv930H6Wn 1424215204
Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-203.cisco.com (unknown []) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 23F52680176 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F1E224EF-3D6F-4D84-A8DE-F12D562358A1"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:02 -0800
References: <54E28696.6080000@nic.ad.jp>
To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <BCD5A0C5-BE2A-4A0C-9724-E994865C3C70@cooperw.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BYx0z3jZNgcXb2CUjDbTQCCYwvE>
Subject: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] 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: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:20:09 -0000

FYI re the numbers community discussion on this topic. 

Personally I think there are some useful points in there that seem likely true from the IETF side as well — that the two proposals are not incompatible, and that the IETF Trust is not the only option.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>;
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
> Date: February 16, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM PST
> To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>;, ianaxfer@nro.net
> ...
> Dear Colleagues,
> While this is still being confirmed with the CRISP Team, below is the
> latest summary of the intention of the number resources community I
> observe at this stage:
> * It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the mark
>   and the name be transferred to an entity independent of the
>   IANA Numbering Services Operator.
> * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable
>   option, given this is supported by the IETF community, and the IETF
>   Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only option and open
>   to consider an option which works for the IETF community.
>   (I am only mentioning the IETF as this is the community where the
>    inconsistency was pointed out by the ICG at this point. This may
>    change once the names have submitted the proposal)
> * The holder of the mark and domain are expected to keep a condition,
>   that IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use of
>   IANA Numbering Services, in case we change the IANA operator in the
>   future.
> Given the numbers proposal does not set a must condition to transfer the
> mark and domain to the IETF Trust nor any other specific entity, and the
> IETF proposal does not say it will oppose to consider transfer of the
> mark and domain to the IETF Trust, we do not observe any inconsistencies.
> Please share your feedback before 18th Feb if you have any other
> comments to the above summary.
> Regards,
> Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer@nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer