Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and domain name

Russ Housley <> Tue, 23 June 2015 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0247E1B2E6C for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHoBUvWLzfUC for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5562F1B2E76 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45BE9A4020; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:17:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jv9hGN5y8HVJ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:16:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759189A4052; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:16:47 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20150619170708.84611.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506201928040.47864@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211008240.48224@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211400250.48860@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221032250.50421@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221056420.50578@ary.local> <> <> <>
To: Jefsey <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and domain name
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, 23 Jun 2015 17:18:03 -0000

Jefsey, this is not the process.

In 2007, we had a discussion on this point.  Here is a pointer to that discussion in the archive.

I started a discussion, and I recall it quite clearly because the community was very clear in their wishes.  The mail thread starts here:

and the consensus call is here:

I have copied the consensus call message below to save you time...


= = = = = = = =

The discussion of this topic has died down, so it is time for me to 
make a consensus call.  It is quite clear to me that the community 
does not want to delay the publication of RFCs.  Therefore, in this 
note, I am asking the RFC Editor to publish RFCs as soon as Auth48 is complete.

If there is a successful appeal against the approval of an 
Internet-Draft, then the IESG will offer a remedy.  One possible 
remedy is to classify the RFC as Historic, and another possible 
remedy is to progress a new RFC that obsoletes the earlier one and 
contains some appropriate correction.  These remedies are attractive 
because no new processes or procedures are needed.  Another possible 
remedy might be to withdraw the RFC.  This remedy is not as 
attractive because there is no procedure to do it.  However, this 
discussion has raised a few situations where this might be considered 
the appropriate action.

The IAB, in their oversight role, must approve the general policy 
followed by the RFC Editor.  So, I am asking the IAB to consider the 
potential need to withdraw an RFC.  Hopefully this will never be 
needed, but some thought about the way that it would be handled will 
be useful, just in case.

Many thanks,
   Russ Housley
   IETF Chair

On Jun 23, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Jefsey recently put this forward on the IANAplan mailing list: 
> "Draft is subject to my appeal. It should not therefore be published before the RFC 2026 procedure - which may involve ISOC - is completed"
> This is a pretty clear signal that he will further appeal to the ISOC board should we deny his appeal.  It seems further likely that he will do so at the last possible moment, to delay the publication as much as possible.  
> I think this means we should examine the appeal as quickly as possible so that the response and shift up the chain do not add to the potential delay.  
> I am willing to help prepare a draft response from the IAB, if there are one or two others who will join in.
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> Iab-Vote mailing list

On Jun 23, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Jefsey wrote:

> The Draft is subject to my appeal. It should not therefore be published before the RFC 2026 procedure - which may involve ISOC - is completed. In order to have a better hands-on experience of this IANA trademark issue, it is my intent to give the "" domain name to the "international all-network association" in order for them to set, experience and operate a mutual documentation and registry system.
> This way to proceed turned out to be positive with ISO where we eventually allied: in case of an UDRP I will not object to transfer the name to who will best protect the users interests. This "who" will then have to be legally determinated.
> jfc
> At 15:51 23/06/2015, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 6/23/15 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > I'm not sure I understood Dave's plan, but what I would suggest (which
>> > doesn't involve any bargaining chips as far as I can see) is:
>> >
>> > 1. State that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle to hold
>> > the IANA IPR as an asset for the entire Internet community. I think
>> > that would be a useful addendum to the IANAPLAN document, but it
>> > shouldn't be allowed to hold up the RFC publication.
>> That document is in the RFC Editor queue but is being held for the final
>> combined document (that has been the plan all along) so that we can
>> either reference or append it to make clear what the final outcome was,
>> for the record.  We do not normally amend other text beyond the
>> agreement, but this is entirely up to the area director.  I do wonder if
>> it would be useful to include as appendices consensus positions such as
>> that reached on February 19th in response to the ICG query.
>> If rough consensus has evolved to a different point, that would be
>> useful to clarify.  But again, I would suggest that the point here is
>> not to tell the Trust that we require that the domain and the trademark
>> and IPR be held, but rather that we simply state that it is our desire
>> to retain rights to use of them, should the IFO change, and how that
>> happens is a matter of discussion between lawyers and those who are
>> negotiating on our behalf, and not engineers.
>> Eliot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list