[Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 09 February 2015 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 276FD1A0067 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 y4T-XwBBf6Me for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83CA1A005D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB10209CA for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 00:55:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:55:25 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; s=mesmtp; bh=z3yGXl3K+Zzig+1VVkzj7ui5HTM=; b=0xIw 9xviV5p8nMYs73srtETPVwZ84unV8d+1Yogik5RWnF/mTftLa2/uDz1omd8ry209 ALuQySz77wkaaRf2YUhrfOJrjDfilRbLEkSNCCpJaIhB1tns19jBm5ur9b0B9/aT Os5YLZknlCeJCFJKLF4eAWg45KuXoE+kR+cAK1Q=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=z3yGXl3K+Zzig+1V Vkzj7ui5HTM=; b=UDPPw3D6QhgdZ2zNTPxalx40uIJcqPeyve+wjwTViZNhLJjq l2sGZjhKLw+O0ao5nLUGJZ6TyF/5j/sBFTuO7C9iXaQfpwBm+VAQrrpLh996gNht ZXAiW4i25S/YFPvCZBz0lYF1jOjWRgpw1PBEgdntqkGxN2nwP1M4jenYHJs=
X-Sasl-enc: KKOEhAgR2QKrfrnPnirKOgf2kEL4F0HcjKWcaCPA+CTR 1423461325
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2F0C3C00290 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 00:55:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78D33230-5ABB-417C-9664-1100B116CB09"
Message-Id: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:24 -0800
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/PVotlV4DYqAVFoxjiPt_Sc-FgYM>
Subject: [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 05:55:29 -0000

Dear IANAPLAN WG,

The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response [1] did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal [2] says: 

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.” 

The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?

Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/s/txu310uikebwfbj/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.pdf?dl=0
[2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9xzphbzczl2372/ICG%20RFP%20Number%20Resource%20Proposal.pdf?dl=0