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

"Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> Fri, 07 November 2014 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
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 8EDC91A0092 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:05:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 y1e5PG5vDidy for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970A51A008C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049376.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049376.ppops.net-0018ba01. (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id sA7Ierhh030731; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:51:57 -0500
Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by m0049376.ppops.net-0018ba01. with ESMTP id 1qh221g5ys-5 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:51:57 -0500
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.97]) by stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:51:47 -0500
From: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, 'Miles Fidelman' <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, "'ianaplan@ietf.org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
Thread-Index: AQHP960iQbkZx6Ao80Cv4+wEz5Ij95xPyGuAgAA0/ACAAADXAIAAAw4AgACLogCAACs6gP//uiCAgADC1gCAAAfPgIAACgwAgAAESoD//32igIAAiAgAgAAA6YCAAAWHAIAAKOGAgAASLoCAAErKAIAAeYgAgAAktgCAAAkQAIAAaaqAgAAbPACAAAd4AIAAZEGA//+U/oAAVsNggP//ld8A
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:51:46 +0000
Message-ID: <D0824FAD.137A42%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net> <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105154903.GI30379@mx1.yitter.info> <498a39b81b774192bd2d609b3feab35f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105234444.GM31320@crankycanuck.ca> <545ABCB0.5080206@meetinghouse.net> <8f3dcda6c3db4cd8be1b77444f987d59@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0805C27.136BE7%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <059f2b06a7b44f09b7568d8966861fb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
In-Reply-To: <059f2b06a7b44f09b7568d8966861fb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807
x-originating-ip: [192.168.128.84]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C0F1E7B19E821B49B1229A400059F7E5@neustar.biz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7615 signatures=670576
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1411070155
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/eZnoBgkWYs_Ma2aWficaEhCNUsU
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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 19:05:37 -0000

Asking for a transfer sounds like a polite thing to do. Directing the IAOC
to "conclude a supplemental agreement" which "requires the transfer of any
associated marks and identifiers" - as the -02 text of the document reads
- sounds to me like an ultimatum which would antagonize other
stakeholders. But even that language is too weak for some on this list,
who apparently believe we should preemptively seize those assets ourselves
(in the name of the IETF Trust or ISOC) by appealing directly to the NTIA.
I'm sure that wouldn't step on anybody's toes, right. So forgive me if I
deem your characterization below to be a watered-down misconstrual of the
actual positions being advanced in the current text and on the list.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to express that the current
situation (i.e. RFC2860) works today and would likely work in the future.
I'm sure the ICG and NTIA would understand the implications of that for
the way forward. I don't know if we need to make any "ask" here, though,
because if we can't go forward with something roughly like RFC2860, then
we'll just do something else for our future work - it isn't that big a
deal. Making an "ask" awards power to the people we're asking. But I don't
think we need anyone's blessing to do our job.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 11/7/14, 9:11 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peterson, Jon [mailto:jon.peterson@neustar.biz]
>> There is nothing we need that we stand to gain by negotiating or
>> compromising - but plenty we could lose. Taking us down this path is
>> reckless and unnecessary.
>
>Logically, I cannot make any sense of your statement here.
>
>You are just assuming the truth of the exact claim that is under dispute:
>namely, that asking for transfer of the domain and trademark would lead
>to some kind of negotiation with ICANN in which unspecified 'bad things'
>would be demanded in return.
>
>We still don't have any concrete evidence for this claim. We don't even
>have any idea what kind of 'bad things' are being talked about.
>
>QED
>--MM
>
>
>
>