Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

+1

Richard Hill wrote:
> Sorry, I don't agree with that.  That language is too vague for me.
>
> If people are not comfortable with the language that is currently in 02,
> then I suggest that we develop language to the effect that the intellectual
> property rights and the domain name IANA.ORG will be transferred to the ISOC
> Trust (or whatever part of ISOC is the appropriate entity to receive it).
>
> In my view, the mark, and the domain name, belong to ISOC morally, if not
> legally and, as I said before, I'm sure that everybody would agree that ISOC
> will allow whatever entity or entities are providing the IANA function to
> use the mark and the domain name.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Peterson,
>> Jon
>> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 17:20
>> To: Bernard Aboba; Stephen Farrell
>> Cc: Marc Blanchet; Alissa Cooper; ianaplan@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working
>> group last call
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. "Cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize confusion"
>> gives us enough wiggle-room to be able to manage some likely transition
>> situations. The prior language probably doesn't.
>>
>> Jon Peterson
>> Neustar, Inc.
>>
>> On 11/2/14, 7:16 AM, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 1, 2014, at 3:41 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alissa's point goes a little beyond my comment on the same
>>>> text, but having read this, I share her concerns.
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/11/14 00:11, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>> I¹d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of the
>>>>> document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns this
>>>>> text:
>>>>>
>>>>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to
>>>>> transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a
>>>>> supplemental agreement that- ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>>>>> subsequent operators."
>>>>>
>>>>> My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to two
>>>>> operators. So if we end up in a situation where there are multiple
>>>>> IANA operators for different registries, how will it be decided who
>>>>> gets the existing marks? If I were the current owner of such marks, I
>>>>> don¹t see how I could agree to this provision without foreclosing the
>>>>> possibility that there may be multiple simultaneous operators in the
>>>>> future. This is why I think this requirement should be stated as
>>>>> requiring ³cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize
>>>>> confusion" associated with marks and identifiers, or some similar
>>>>> language that provides a safeguard in the event of transition but
>>>>> does not mandate specific transfer actions related to marks and
>>>>> identifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires the
>>>>> IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of maintaining the
>>>>> existing relationship that the IETF has with the IAOC wherein it is
>>>>> the IAOC¹s responsibility to determine the format in which is carries
>>>>> out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marc Blanchet
>>>>> <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
>>>>>> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
>>>>>> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
>>>>>> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working
>>>>>> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our
>>>>>> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people
>>>>>> send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed
>>>>>> or discussed before or during the meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Draft:
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>>>>> list Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>>>> list Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra