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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 5, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> Certainly there are issues that some people keep claiming are central
> to the process; whether they are central _for the IETF_ seems not to
> be quite so obvious.  I resent the suggestion that those of us who
> disagree either "wish to deny" or "wish to ignore": it could be that
> we just disagree with those who think they're central.  

To be clear, I have not stated that the iana.org or IANA mark issue 
is central - only that it is a present interdependency, and that such 
independencies are specifically requested within the ICG RFP response.

> ...
> I guess I don't know what an "effective" proposal to the ICG is.
> Perhaps I could be enlightened.  ...

The ICG RFP asks:

" · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer communities.
If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe them here. In this case please also describe how the service or activity should be addressed by the transition plan."

To the extent that the IETF community presently relies upon the 
"iana.org" domain name and/or makes use of the IANA mark, I do 
believe that should be noted in the IETF's ICG RFP response.

One can note it along with a comment that says "To be worked out", 
or "lack of coordination would be bad", or even no suggestion at 
all with respect to the proposed transition plan; it's only the 
failure to mention it at all that would be a material omission 
on the part of the IETF.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.