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

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

On 11/6/14, 8:10 AM, "John Curran" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> And I think it would be great if that relationship continued along
>> past lines.
>
>I think it would be great if cooperation in the use of the domain name
>and marks (to serve multiple communities) was achieved even absent NTIA's
>present IANA stewardship; how do you proposed this should be achieved?

What I meant by "the relationship continuing along past lines" is that we
continue to have the good people at the IANA manage our protocol
parameters as we have in the past (like, along the lines of RFC2860, which
doesn't call out the NTIA in any way I can recall). If for some reason
that becomes untenable, though, it isn't the end of the world - and it is
not a contingency that I believe requires us to seek powers and
responsibilities the IETF has not historically possessed or even coveted.


That doesn't speak to your multiple communities, but this ICG response is
the IETF's response. A winning overall transition strategy is, thank
goodness, a problem way above my pay grade. I am only in this thread to
advocate against the IETF demanding the reassignment of various corporate
assets, or trying to compel major world governments to do this or that. As
Eliot notes, the "requires the transfer" language in -02 is already being
amended by he and Alissa, and I have every expectation I'll be happy with
the result. If this remains controversial on the list, I will continue
trying to persuade others here that we don't need to annex property and
transform the IETF into a new "techno-political" body or what have you in
order to weather this transition.


Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.