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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 07/11/2014 04:54, Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> Jon - 
>>
>>   I have no view on whether the IETF should assert any position with
>>   respect to intended future use of the IANA marks or domain name (and
>>   do understand how asserting a position, absent constructive
>> engagement, 
>>   could be misunderstood by others in the stewardship transition planning
>>   process.)
>>
>>   However, I cannot tell if you are also against any mention of the
>> IETF's
>>   _present and existing use_ of the IANA marks and domain name in the
>> ICG 
>>   RFP response...  could you opine specifically on this question?
> 
> I'm totally fine with detailing the IETF's present and existing use of the
> IANA - we would be kind of missing the point of the questionnaire if we
> didn't. And I think it would be great if that relationship continued along
> past lines. I am only pushing back against the notion that this IETF
> response to the ICG should take some ideological or "moral" stance about
> the ownership of domains or trademarks. I believe the justifications
> offered in support of this move both misunderstand and endanger the role
> of the IETF.

Exactly. Ever since Lewis Carroll dissected the difference between
words and meanings, logicians and computer scientists have understood
that names don't actually matter. So we would be foolish to make this
a 'sine qua non'. Factually, it would be inconvenient and costly
to change the domain name, and we can certainly point that out.

    Brian