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

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Fri, 07 November 2014 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 7DE131A1ABA for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:26:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 Y13mUTueMgPM for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA5F1A1AB4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-15.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-15.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.155]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sA7KQodg023391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:26:50 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-15.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:26:43 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:26:37 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, 'Miles Fidelman' <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, "'ianaplan@ietf.org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
Thread-Index: AQHP960u8Q3qkgXVCEGyOQLXbJCufpxPyGuAgAA0/ACAAADXAIAAAw4AgACLogCAACs6gIAAQCaAgAA80ACAAAfPgIAACgwAgAAESYCAAAOpgIAAAgIAgAAA6YCAAAWHAIAAKOGAgAASLoCAAErKAIAAeYcA///QxKCAAF0DAIAAEmbAgABygACAAAd4AIAAEC6AgABvMACAAdrLgIAAcS4A//+/BUA=
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:26:36 +0000
Message-ID: <bcb86b6995de41feba256567c114265d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net> <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105154903.GI30379@mx1.yitter.info> <498a39b81b774192bd2d609b3feab35f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105234444.GM31320@crankycanuck.ca> <545ABCB0.5080206@meetinghouse.net> <8f3dcda6c3db4cd8be1b77444f987d59@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0805C27.136BE7%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <059f2b06a7b44f09b7568d8966861fb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0824FAD.137A42%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
In-Reply-To: <D0824FAD.137A42%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [149.119.215.15]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-07_08:2014-11-07,2014-11-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1411070166
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/OYHuMLWM0TJyt7D1bLm7kXqaA60
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:26:54 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> Asking for a transfer sounds like a polite thing to do. Directing the IAOC to
> "conclude a supplemental agreement" which "requires the transfer of any
> associated marks and identifiers" - as the -02 text of the document reads
> - sounds to me like an ultimatum which would antagonize other
> stakeholders.

OK. I see the difference in the attitude with which we approach this. I am beginning to think it is a purely attitudinal matter and not all that substantive. So I have more sympathy for your position now but I still think you are focusing on the wrong things.

A request to the IAOC to "conclude an agreement" that "requires the transfer" is not an "ultimatum" it is a proposal for a rather impersonal set of institutional changes that sets the stage for long-term accountability improvements in Internet governance. 

To put it more concretely, we are not talking to "nice people" sitting across the dinner table from us, asking them to pass the salt. We are trying to set the parameters for long term interactions among impersonal organizational entities and functions. 

So if I were you I would focus on whether it is a good idea - for the general good of the Internet and for the IETF - for to have control of the iana.org domain and the trademark in the hands of the IETF trust or whether it is better for the public and the IETF to have it in the hands of ICANN. That's all that matters. The purpose of this exercise is to rearrange the institutional design to accommodate the withdrawal of the NTIA. The purpose is not to be polite or nice, or to avoid offending anyone. The purpose is to get it right. 

If you sincerely believe that IETF should be permanently locked in to ICANN as IANA provider, should have no choice as to who performs those functions for it, and therefore the marks and domain should stay with ICANN, then fine. Please argue that position. I will engage with those arguments respectfully. But please let's not argue about etiquette!