Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

John C Klensin <> Mon, 09 February 2015 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B76C1A0382 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joVbhp0S7VPl for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40C61A037D for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1YKnm3-000EIi-UC; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:49:11 -0500
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:49:06 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Jari Arkko <>, Alissa Cooper <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 12:49:18 -0000

--On Monday, February 09, 2015 18:48 +0800 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?

As you know, I've suggested several times (on and off this list)
that we announce willingness to accept the names if that is what
others want.  If that means we also would need to work out
arrangements for delegations, such as who formally tells us that
a change has occurred and we should change the nameservers for
that zone or that the IANA function is being split up and that
we should manage the is top-level zone and to whom we should
delegate subsidiary domains, that should be fine and I hope we
can avoid spending a lot of time on it.  

Put differently, we still don't think it is necessary to make
specific changes in this area but are happy to cooperate with
the numbers community (and/or others) if they decide that is the
best thing to do.

I think that is consistent with the comments in your note.