Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 09 February 2015 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6B21A040C for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R4IdNEM9TgUd for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFE21A040B for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19EY98J001956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:13 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:34:07 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>, Alissa Cooper <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:34:13 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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, 09 Feb 2015 14:34:48 -0000

On 2/9/2015 2:48 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the 
> IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our
> proposal - it stays at the “not required” state, is the IETF community
> OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are
> only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it.
> FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that
> our opinion was “not required” rather than that we’d oppose it. If
> that is right, then the answer is perhaps that we’d be fine with
> that. Do I read that right, and what do others think?

Based on the response the IETF original sent, your text, above here,
seems compatible with the preference that seems to have emerged from ICANN.

I took the earlier IANAPlan discussion as deciding that ownership of the
name was not worth a possibly contentious process, rather than an IETF
desire not to hold the name.

In operational terms, if the IETF has to change its IANA-related
registry activities to use a name other than, it will cost us
effort.  So the benefit of having the IETF Trust hold the registration
for is that the IETF is not likely to suffer inconvenience with
respect to the name, if the IETF-related IANA registry operation is
moved.  Of course, it might not suffer any if the name is held by
another entity (other than ICANN) but the risk is higher.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking