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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 30B911A8786 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:26:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 AaWR-GHnCV3y for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BBE01A8785 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3708C8A035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:26:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:26:18 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141103222618.GB28757@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20141103183007.GP27751@mx1.yitter.info> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <20141103212831.GF28565@mx1.yitter.info> <5457FBA7.6050908@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5457FBA7.6050908@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/dD9q8G6IuaDQGRolAN-fZXtOe34
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:26:22 -0000

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:03:19PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> How does that sound to you in principle?

My objection to moving the relevant bits to the IETF Trust has never
been one of principle.  It's been one of practicality: I don't see any
incentive whatsoever for ICANN to give up that property without
getting something in return, and I can't think of anything I want to
give up more than iana.org in case there's more than one operator.   

Again, to be clear, I think that would be a very bad outcome.  I don't
think it would be good to have to split the iana.org stuff, and I
think we should avoid it.  But I think it is preposterous to imagine
that ICANN is going to give away an asset just because we want it,
without extracting some concession.  Therefore, it'd be fine to say to
the IAOC, "Please ask for this."  But if they don't get it, what then?

The burden of proof, IMO, is on those who claim that ICANN will simply
have to give up control of that asset.  I've yet to see a good
argument that they will, and I note it is somewhat unusual in the US
for a government department to force a corporation to give up an asset
without any compensation.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com