Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Jari Arkko <> Mon, 26 January 2015 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A291A0078 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:30:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O9IfgoLJZl1u for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76E71A0067 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA752CC61; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:29:59 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TT9FTU2AFVkH; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:29:58 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [] ( [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D202CC4D; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:29:58 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_84252BD6-DB0E-40C0-B074-23093F3E7744"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:29:54 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Seun Ojedeji <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Bernard Aboba <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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, 26 Jan 2015 23:30:04 -0000

Re: IPR issues

Lets remember that there is no single ‘IPR issue’. The topic is complex, and the IETF community came to a conclusion with regards to those different aspects. For instance, see the item about data being in public domain in Section 2:III. The community came to a different conclusion with regards to domain names. And that’s fine. The IETF community is evaluating the situation with its experience of the situation, and from where I sit, making fairly reasonable decisions.

I did want to respond on:

> However, upon the mail from Alissa, your first response implied that the IAOC is considering the IPR issue related to It will be good to make a distinction of what the IETF community wants to do about the IPR because the IPR in question is something that affects the 3 communities so I don't see it as what the RIR alone would say they want to donate to IETF Trust; it requires the other communities to speak the same (the RIR proposal also took note of that caveat).
> So my point is that if the IETF agrees with the RIR then it should also indicate it in it's proposal or at least be ready to respond when ICG comes back knocking on that particular subject. I believe discussing what to do about such issue should be within the scope of this WG and not the IAOC as you seem to imply.

You both may be right. We all have observed the same suggestion from the RIRs. I think that falls in the same category as other potential cross-community dependencies. The ICG needs to collect the issues those types of issues, the IETF trust needs to understand if what is being asked is at all feasible. And as Alissa noted, they are doing their work. But ultimately, in these sort of matters, the IETF will ask its community for feedback.

But at the moment, we know what the IETF direction is for the transition arrangements. We may be able to do additional things, if it is necessary for the other two communities, and we may have to re-evaluate some part of our proposal if the ICG detects a direct conflict.