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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 11/3/14, 5:12 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Eliot,
>> 
>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I suggest that if
>>> the IETF/IAB or IETF trust takes control of the name, it do so with the
>>> understanding that it take responsibility for seeing that backward
>>> compatibility continue for each customer (names, numbers, protocol
>>> parameters, in particular) for so long as it is safe to do so.  If
>>> someone else wants to take control of the name, they should make that
>>> same promise.
>> This is so close to the language that I suggested that it’s hard for me to tell the difference between what you’re suggesting and what I suggested. To state the above requirement concisely:
>> 
>> "Whoever owns the marks and identifiers has responsibility for ensuring backwards compatibility in the event that IANA operations shift to different entit(ies).”
>> 
>> The requirement is that the owner of the marks/identifiers has to enable a smooth transition of the operations — regardless of whether the marks owner is the same as the operator or different or if there are multiple operators. Because the current owner is ICANN, this requirement would fall on ICANN.
>> 
>> I would be satisfied if we substitute the above requirement in place of the one currently in the draft about the transfer of marks and identifiers. Do I read your email correctly that you would be satisfied as well?
> 
> Very much so!!

Cool. So I would suggest something like this:

"To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
   to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
   agreement that-

...

   2.  requires the owner of any associated marks and identifiers to ensure backwards compatibility with subsequent operators.”

Alissa


> 
> Eliot
>