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

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of 'Andrew
> Sullivan'
> Sent: jeudi, 6. novembre 2014 15:44
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:08:02AM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >

SNIP

>
> Obviously it's not abou engineering.  But the plain meaning of his
> words is that we shouldn't use the same procedure we use for
> engineering things for non-engineering things, and I disagree.

OK.  Let's agree to disagree because, as indicated in my previous message, I
don't think that the IETF procedure is necessarily the best procedure to use
for all issues.

SNIP

>
> The problem we supposedly have, but which proponents of declaring that
> we have moral authority over IANA don't seem to want to analyse,
> happens just in case there is a separation of the IANA functions and
> it happens in an unfriendly manner.  Supposedly under those
> circumstances, whoever then controls iana.org is going to set up a
> competing protocol parameters registry,

That's not what I said.  What I said is that the new IANA functions
operators would not immediately and easily be able to use the mark and the
domain name IANA.ORG, and that that would create some confusion and
disruption.  We probably disagree regarding the significance of the possible
confusion and disruption.

>and sow confusion all over the
> Internet by sending people to ports 35 and 344 instead of 53 and 443.
> I claim that the risk of this is impossibly small, and that in the
> case of such a dispute anyone who actually cares about protocol
> parameters will learn pretty quickly how to get the IETF ones;

Yes.  The question is whether it is worth taking steps now to minimize the
possible disruption.  In my view, the steps required now are minor and
zero-risk, and thus worth taking.  Apparently you disagree.

SNIP

>
> Yet you apparently believe that the IETF can extort ICANN,

Again, I am lost.  ICANN has mandated the ICG to prepare a proposal, and the
ICG has mandated the IETF to prepare part of that proposal.  The final
proposal will be ICANN's proposal, so nobody is extorting anything from
anybody.

>which is
> what is actually being proposed: they have property, and some are
> proposing that they have to give it to us without compensation.

As others have pointed out, ICANN took it from others without compensation.
And there was nothing wrong with that: nobody complained, and the previous
owners did not request compensation.  Apparently it made sense in the
context of the creation of ICANN.

Similarly, we are here proposing that ICANN pass the property in question on
to some other entity, without compensation, because that is what makes sense
in the context of the transition.

SNIP

> And as part of "continuing to be the home of the IANA",
> surely, it will be better for it if it controls the trademark.  I
> cannot see how that is even a little bit controversial.

You seem to be thinking that ICANN is separate from this process.  As I've
tried to explain before, the purpose of this process is to prepare the
proposal that the ICG, on behalf of ICANN, will present to NTIA.

So what ICANN thinks about what is better for it will be what is in the
proposal.  That is, the proposal will reflect what ICANN thinks should be
done.

>
> But we already have in the I-D the term that they have to agree to
> move the IANA trademark to some other entity in the event the
> functions move.  I'm not opposed to that at all, since it appears to
> be something they've already agreed to.

I have no objections to the current language in "02."

>But what people seem to want
> is something else: that the trademark and iana.org domain name move to
> the IETF Trust _even if_ the functions aren't moving.

I was under the impression that some people would prefer to change the
current language in "02".  If that is the case, then I propose alternative
language.

>I don't see any
> reason to ask for that, and I don't see why ICANN should agree to it.

Again, the proposal that the ICG will present will be ICANN's proposal, so I
fail to see how ICANN could disagree with what it itself proposes.

>
> Moreover, as someone pointed out upthread, the trademark might have
> been obtained as part of a function of a contract with the USG.  If
> so, and the usual rules apply, then it may actually be the property of
> the USG.

Somebody posted to the list the trademark record.  The trademark belongs to
ICANN.

And I'm not aware of any contracts between the US government and ICANN that
relate to the trademark.

>In that case, there's another problem: trasnferring USG
> assets around requires legislative action.  I don't think we want to
> open that possibility.

Can you point us to any evidence that this might be required?  As noted
above, I have not seen any.

>
> Regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>