Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E3E1A0451 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oO7IGDyKSJt for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D431A044D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [101.100.166.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C97168A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:47:55 +0800
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/N8VKmUPZuz03pz6oom7xyNYQXpE>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:49:21 -0000

On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:34:07AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I took the earlier IANAPlan discussion as deciding that ownership of the
> name was not worth a possibly contentious process, rather than an IETF
> desire not to hold the name.

That was how I took the earlier discussion too.  I will also say that,
in my own case, my opposition to adding iana.org and the IANA trade
mark to our list of transitions must haves was exactly, "Not worth a
possibly contentious process."  I think we should not bargain for such
a change, because I don't think it gives us anything that would be
worth giving anything up for.  But if someone else wants to engage in
such bargaining, I think the IETF Trust is a fine place for the name
or trademark or both to land.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com