Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

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

Miles,
On 11/02/2015 02:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Bernard,
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed.
>>>
>>> In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain.  There
>>> is the issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA functions are no longer handled by a single
>>> operator.  Ideally the ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which this is decided among the IETF,
>>> RIRs and names communities. And of course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust.
>>
> 
> 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 

No it won't. Its job is to hold IPR for the benefit of the IETF, period.
(Speaking as one of the original Trustees, BTW.)

> 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."

That it could do, as well as delegating the right to use the domain name to
a suitable operator.

    Brian