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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 22 June 2015 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 C32311AC3E3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 y4S8-WWoSzDK for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D9D1AC3E2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.87] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5ME7Sb2010936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:34 -0700
Message-ID: <5588169E.1030007@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:26 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20150619170708.84611.qmail@ary.lan> <3F18936E1587B5F2BB89E800@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55847BE9.9040507@gmail.com> <5584BC64.7060403@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local> <5584D664.90003@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506201928040.47864@ary.local> <55863ABF.8020903@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211008240.48224@ary.local> <5586EB11.5030404@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211400250.48860@ary.local> <5587A015.9030700@cisco.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221032250.50421@ary.local> <55881331.9070902@dcrocker.net> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221056420.50578@ary.local> <558814B4.6010609@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <558814B4.6010609@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 07:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/O7z8QBuwxe4LG05KyzvTzBSfZXA>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 22 Jun 2015 14:07:38 -0000

On 6/22/2015 6:59 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Well, OK.  You know what my plan is, which I belive to be eminently
>> > realistic and founded in the practicalities of trademark law.
>> >
>> > What's your plan?
> I start by saying what I want and then hand it to people whose job it is
> to make the plan (they're called IAOC).


The current model is to have ICANN be viewed as a contractor for IANA
services.  Remarkably, this view seems to be held by more than one of
the affected communities.  I say remarkably because getting alignment on
strategic issues, between entities like the IETF and the RIRs seems
unusual to me.

In any event, contractors should not 'own' resources that properly
belong to the those contracting with them.  More generally, an
arrangement with a contractor should be devised so as to facilitate
possible transfer of the contracting relationship to a different provider.

Any arrangement which 'defers' basic matters of control until the
termination phase is inviting transfer problems.  By 'inviting' I mean
that it is guaranteeing there will be serious problems.

My plan is that we do the normal and reasonable and responsible work of
anticipating the transfer now, rather than taking an escapist stance
that what we arrange now doesn't matter.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net