Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John
> Curran
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 22:47
> To: Bernard Aboba
> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA
> trademark and iana.org domain name
> 
> On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> wrote:

SNIP
 
>    Without getting into an overly laborious exercise, it’s probably
> good to remember that
>    ICANN was envisioned as a formalized incorporated version of the
> IANA, and was to
>    do just what Jon (et al) did, only with a more formal structure
> around it.  The ICANN
>    blueprint did not have the vast DNS representation structure and
> policy development
>    activities; the original bylaws called for the DNSO to be distinct
> from ICANN, just as
>    the ASO and Protocol Support Organization (PSO).

Indeed.

>   In this context,
> some of the
>    more interesting aspects of the present arrangements might make more
> sense.
> 
>    The exercise we now face is that the overall USG imprimatur (e.g.
> the IANA Functions
>    contract) may be removed in the near future, and hence we need to
> make sure that we
>    have arrangements that make sense going forward _in the absence of
> the USG saying
>    ‘just make it all work’ via the IANA functions contract_
> 
>    This is bound to expose some issues that need to be considered,
> since the lightweight
>    coordination of IETF activities with other communities (i.e. the
> PSO) has since been
>    struck, the DNS community effectively was injected into ICANN itself
> (changing it from a
>    formalization of just the IANA into a heavily DNS focused
> organization.)  None of these
>    departures from the original blueprint matter much while we have an
> all-emcompassing
>    NTIA IANA functions contract, but in the absence of such, it’s going
> to be fairly important
>    to get the relationships “right” going forward.

Indeed. In the original scheme the DNSO would have been more or less at the same level as the ASO and the IETF, so ICANN would only have been an umbrella organization for the three operational communities. But now ICANN is in effect the DNSO.  

That's why I think that separating the IANA function would have made sense. PTI, as proposed, is not, in my view, a meaningful separation. So the current proposal amounts to giving what can be referred to as "the DNSO" a dominant influence over the IANA function.

It seems to me that putting the intellectual property, and the domain name, in neutral hands still makes sense.

So I would not favor any changes to the previous decisions make by this group.

> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimers:  My views alone.
>                       Apologies for length, in a airport and lack time
> for appropriate editing...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan