Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

['Andrew Sullivan' <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:07:15PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> > And by my reckoning, there is as yet no consensus to ask for
> > iana.org or the IANA trademark.
> 
> There is certainly a preponderance of opinion that we should. Failing to ask for it certainly has no consensus. 

"Preponderance of opinion" is not the way the IETF works.  We work by
rough consensus, and it is possible in rough consensus for even one
lone voice to derail the consensus, if the argument is strong.  See below.
 
> That's true enough, and a good point, so why is Miles's suggestion greeted with such panic?

I'm not panicking.  Miles is suggesting that there's something
_outside_ IETF processes -- the IAOC, some lawyers, the IAB, anything
-- that is appropriately brought to bear here.  I argue that, on the
contrary, there really _isn't_ anything outside the WG in IETF terms.
So Miles says, "Well, IETF processes are inappropriate for this,
because $some_authoritay_not_here."  I agree with him that there isn't
some external Internet Boss who can decide.  I think that's a feature,
not a bug.

>  You're missing the point about confidence in standards. To continue
> with the financial analogy, you are in effect saying, "we don't mind
> if people issue counterfeit money, everyone knows where to get the
> real stuff."

No, I'm saying that is indeed a serious risk, and we ought to worry
about it, but that meaningless shibboleths (viz. "the domain name
where I got this") are not a protection.  If we think that there is a
real problem with the legitimacy of data in the IETF registries, then
we should sign the data.  (And in fact, I think we _should_ sign the
data.  But that's not part of this transition, because it has nothing
to do with outside people.)

>  of people will be confused. And since the costs or downsides of
>  controlling the domain and the trademark are negligible, why take
>  that risk? Have you ever described one bad thing that would happen
>  if this proposal calls for moving the trademark or the domain? I
>  don't think you have.

No, I have, but you reject the premise.  I have said that it forces us
to negotiate with ICANN, potentially giving up something that we want
instead of this.  You reject the idea that we'll have to negotiate
over this, because NTIA will simply impose whatever we ask for.  In my
opinion, that is a dangerous fantasy.  ICANN is also the source of the
"names community" input to the ICG.  Just as we have the opportunity
to comment on and express our views about the other communities'
proposals where they don't fit with our understanding, the other
communities will have a chance to do the same for us.  I just find it
implausible that ICANN wouldn't care about this, but I believe that
there are people busily trying to find out.  If I am wrong, I'll
cheerfully withdraw my objection.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]