Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

"John Levine" <> Mon, 09 February 2015 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0B51A007E for <>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.862
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MN6adPQ0TDui for <>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787F31A007A for <>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 42613 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2015 07:35:43 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 9 Feb 2015 07:35:43 -0000
Date: 9 Feb 2015 07:35:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20150209073521.1893.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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 07:35:47 -0000

Hi from Singapore.

In the ICG session this morning, I noticed the slide in the numbers
presentation saying that they want the domain and trademark
transferred to the IETF trust.  (As I recall, that's what it said,
stronger than saying the trust would be OK.) There was some discussion
from the floor, the gist of which was that the name is not important.
As someone said, it could be and it would work just the
same so long as they have the data.

>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?

I believe that the archive of ianaplan will show that we considered
the same issues in ianaplan, and came to the same conclusion that the
domain name isn't worth a lot of hassle.  If the operator changes, and
ICANN is willing to give us, that's fine, but if they aren't
we can call it something else.

In view of the discussion today, I'd start by asking the RIRs whether
it's really a big deal.  If they think it is, from what I've seen
ianaplan wouldn't have trouble with language that allows the transfer
if not requiring it.