Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions

John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> Tue, 05 May 2015 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@arin.net>
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 183011AC3D8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 05:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Mj-HTETEwsxk for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 05:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE421AC416 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 05:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 3F3AF164EAA; Tue, 5 May 2015 08:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chaedge01.corp.arin.net (chaedge01.corp.arin.net [192.149.252.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D17164DAA; Tue, 5 May 2015 08:58:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CHACAS01.corp.arin.net (10.1.30.107) by chaedge01.corp.arin.net (192.149.252.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 5 May 2015 09:04:24 -0400
Received: from CHAMBX01.corp.arin.net ([fe80::1cef:1d7:cca9:5953]) by CHACAS01.corp.arin.net ([fe80::a98b:1e52:e85a:5979%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 5 May 2015 08:58:20 -0400
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
Thread-Index: AQHQhrRXm3oLlNRnoEWK/fZWUSrnF51tjfKAgAAOBIA=
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 12:58:19 +0000
Message-ID: <246AEA8E-5D8F-481F-AF1B-1307845CADEB@arin.net>
References: <6FADE19B-E3BD-48F8-9A2D-91FA6F88E6DC@cooperw.in> <554637C4.2010400@gondrom.org> <64F5CADC-5739-4CB1-B2E3-BAA3B21DA0EB@cooperw.in> <C6F030D4-58DF-4B2B-969E-6D4F2B00C742@shinkuro.com> <E381F582-33AE-40DF-A66C-8F8631064ED3@arin.net> <CAD_dc6icf=iXDCj2o-dcDiGR2vWM7kHAuh1D6c==wakj-nPzMA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6icf=iXDCj2o-dcDiGR2vWM7kHAuh1D6c==wakj-nPzMA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.149.252.96]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_246AEA8E5D8F481FAF1B1307845CADEBarinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/I9XKrUg_PscP_HHou1sJWp-9wc0>
Cc: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
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, 05 May 2015 12:58:26 -0000

On May 5, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
...
Yes Indeed John and its good to read that from ICANN. However there is a follow-up in the proposal that was inspired by the statement you quoted above. I quote below:

"It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."

I guess the fact that its noted as a "preference" would make it not be an absolute transition prerequisite. (not to second-guess the numbers community intent)

Seun -

   There are still several aspects where it is not clear that we have alignment between
   the IANA Stewardship transition proposals from the various communities, and there
   will need to more work to bring things together into a cohesive whole.

   The ICG is doing their role of pointing out possible interface issues and encouraging
   the affected communities to consider these and respond with comments as they feel
   appropriate.   In this case, you might comment to the CWG that they be more explicit
   and insert text that aligns with the numbers community proposal, or you might suggest
   to the CRISP team that they should refine their proposal to reflect the CWG proposal
   and any implications in this regard.

   I’d encourage everyone to review the CWG naming community document and either
   comment directly or raise any anticipated issues in their communities for discussion.
   Note also that there will shortly be another related IANA stewardship transition draft
   released for comment (from the CCWG) which proposes some changes to ICANN’s
   governance structures, and that document should also be reviewed once available
   for comment.

   It’s also worth noting that any interface points which are not clear in these proposals
   are obviously topics that are quite likely to be discussed by leaders of the various
   organizations - this may result in additional articles with ominous headlines should
   such reporting remain in vogue.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN