Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2015 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
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 50B231A8AC1 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 iibzr7fc6euR for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339D01A8982 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v8so24014053qal.7 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:12:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OcTWYqnpL7iubbm4fiaZMIJkfP5Of7dXSZ0yxtylpaQ=; b=of46Zh5O1JhSJkmYeXiODZ0RwsfJ2ryBnomEeSPXjuCZ0KGAznYLibDBXBxZVmVBNe XIolD3oiwtDvrsF70roOjstswech1mD0SFWBuT4ID31Jjo7njP81UD7bzQcuInQmJL7p Ip5YeMnSLE8eT0Ycrfnfyod2iknXcHCR+zq6nXdE2MeqOdDkQvnlHe/A3OY84TOM92fu lK8VgPkaKig4taJHW4ckRl48FSE5giu+/jBGoKJwW7hF47OfOKysfxUfcKhu5xlTlYoY QdNK4tLt+9FNuI7r3dQL6DA0yOXWgP2SgJQB5UDlL1FftESFIC+zyCoO5C+3J97aEO4J 27Ww==
X-Received: by 10.229.216.130 with SMTP id hi2mr1775039qcb.4.1423530729265; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:12:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.148.194 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:11:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <acec667aee4945199d55994c6a7890f4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <AC790ADC-C4CC-4D8E-B11A-138FF58D6D8D@standardstrack.com> <acec667aee4945199d55994c6a7890f4@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:11:39 +0800
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gWTCtQKWUdB-mEA7nhZYYz9oLkF6T5vG4X2pFgFG-yKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c34271de1e050eb19360
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/VTbILSuTAnDt0FG9St4w8t2t4s4>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 01:12:13 -0000

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>; wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Trust
> hold the
> > registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting for it.
> > >
> > >     The IETF is willing to have the IETF Trust hold registration of
> > > IANA.ORG, if that is the preference produced from the IANA Stewardship
> > > Transition Coordination Group process.
>
>
> Bottom line for me: there would be an incompatibility in these proposals
> only if the IETF said that it was opposed to the IETF Trust receiving the
> assets. So I hope you don't say that. An incompatibility would require
> additional work and "open things up" that would better be left concluded.
>

I don't think anyone should feel threatened by Milton's statement above
;-). Even if IETF disagree, it also mean that the RIR needs to
re-look/re-think their decision on this subject matter. My personal view
during the RIR consultation was that the domain and trademark transfer is
not necessarily required at this time especially as it will have less/no
impact to the RIR than to the IETF, but the RIR adopted the view of the
majority which is fine.

Perhaps its worth noting that Richard Hill was one of the supporters of the
transfer and hopefully the ICG will put that in perspective of recent
comments to ICG about the RIR proposal from Richard.

Regards

>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !