Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 09 February 2015 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E3E1A0451 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oO7IGDyKSJt for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D431A044D for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C97168A031 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:47:55 +0800
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: 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 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.


Andrew Sullivan