Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Jefsey <> Tue, 10 February 2015 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BDA1A1AE5; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:15:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oL1eJUjs0PW; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:15:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08C471A90B1; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:8969 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YLEO7-0006CQ-17; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:14:15 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:46 +0100
To: Miles Fidelman <>, "Alissa Cooper" <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>,, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:15:40 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 14:33 10/02/2015, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Why is this such a  big deal?  We're talking about A web server, 
>with redirects for different portions of the site, to the various 
>organizations that the IANA functions have been divied up to.
>One big theme, when discussing why the IETF should not care about 
>the domain was that there were technical workarounds - i.e., using a 
>different domain name for the IETF portion of the IANA functions. 
>THAT would be a right royal pain.  This is a case where a simple, 
>technical fix, works just fine.
>How about some simple language, along the lines of:
>"The IETF Trust will provide a web server that contains one 
>informational home page, and redirects all other traffic to sites 
>maintained by the organizations currently delegated the various IANA 
>functions.  The IETF Trust will license the use of appropriate 
>trademarks to organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions."
>Miles Fidelman

FYI, since no one has considered that our project created any 
difficulty to any of the participating stakeholders, along Miles 
lines and to be sure there is no further confusion, the CatenetCC 
( project has registered openref(s).net and 
freeref(s).net for its FLOSS extension of the IANA in support of the 

A Draft for information on the Catenet intertest-bed will be 
introduced once the project has stabilized and my appeal irt. the I_D 
of this WG will have been addressed by the IESG/IAB/ISOC. This appeal 
will be introduced once the current details being discussed which may 
affect the domain and site are clarified.