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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 9 Nov 2014 17:25, "Miles Fidelman" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> > John Curran wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 9, 2014, at 3:19 AM, Miles Fidelman 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > At the very least, I'd like to see something in our proposal that 
> says that this is an issue that has to be addressed clearly as part of 
> final transition arrangements.  I'd personally like to see the IETF 
> lawyers weigh in and suggest a proposed approach to put forward to the 
> ICG (when flagging a problem, it's always nice to be able to offer a 
> solution).
> >
> I did like to add a +1 to this. However I wonder the basis by which 
> IETF will be making such recommendation[1] especially considering the 
> role it's playing in this process(being a protocol parameter only 
> community).
>

The basis being that IETF is one of the "users" of the IANA.org mark and 
domain - essentially the same basis as the other communities.

> Cheers
> 1. However by the word "recommendation" implies that the ICG could 
> perhaps decide to mute. Making it a component of the proposal would 
> have been desirable.
>

There's no reason a recommendation can't be part of the proposal. In 
essence, I see three things being stated, in the relevant parts of the 
document:

1.  that IETF uses the IANA mark and domain, and how

2.  that there are potential issues that could come up during the 
current and/or future transitions - specifically
--- making provisions for clear and smooth transition of 
ownership/control/licensing/delegation of the mark and name
--- anticipating the possibility that, at some future point, there may 
be different contractors performing different parts of the IANA 
function, which would require somewhat more complicated 
ownership/control/delegation/day-to-day management of the domain

3.  that, the final, combined, consensus proposal that the ICG delivers 
to NTIA, should include specific mechanisms, supplemental agreements, 
what-have-you that address the issues identified above, to be put in 
place as part of the transition process, and then go on to say:
- IETF has identified several options, including:
--- concluding supplemental agreements that provide for the transition 
of ownership/control/registration/etc. in the event of a change in IANA 
functions contractor(s)
--- placing ownership/control/etc. of the marks and domain in the hands 
of an entity other than the IANA functions contractor, such as,
------ the IETF Trust
------ an escrow account with a fiduciary institution, controlled 
jointly by the IETF, and the other stakeholder communities that rely on 
the IANA functions contractor
------ a joint entity created by, and controlled jointly by the IETF and 
the other.....
- and optionally, include a statement that, the IETF's lawyers and IAOC 
recommend option <x> as the one they see as most likely to support 
smooth transitions in IANA functions contractor(s)

Identify the issue.
Identify several solutions that we've identified.
Identify the one our lawyers recommend.
Then leave it to the ICG to manage reconciliation with anything the 
other communities come up with, as part of the next step in the process 
of getting to a proposal.

Anyway, that's how I'd approach it.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra