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

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

Probably language along these lines is viable, sure. This sounds much in
the same spirit as the Alissa/Eliot text regarding "backwards
compatibility." My ear does twitch a little at the "ongoing cooperation in
the use of the IANA domain name and marks," in so far as I'm not sure that
I'd call the administration of the IANA domain name today "cooperative,"
though certainly our use of the IANA function is. Similarly, there must be
a legal dimension (Eric Burger, you listening, man?) to our use of "IANA
Considerations" in RFCs that has some bearing on IANA as a trademark, but
I'd hesitate to stake an IETF consensus position on that.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 11/7/14, 2:45 PM, "John Curran" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> 
>> Heh. I am not insisting that iana.org MUST NOT be transferred to the
>>IETF
>> Trust. Honestly, I think it would be a hassle for us at the end of the
>> day, but if for some reason that is the best outcome for the Internet
>> community, there would be no grounds to prohibit it. I'm just saying
>>that
>> for the purposes of this document, I don't want our ICG response to ask
>> for it, and certainly not to demand it.
>
>Jon - 
>
>  Would you object to the IETF's ICG response proposing (under Section
>III)
>  that "there needs to be a mechanism providing for ongoing cooperation
>  in the use of the IANA domain name and marks, supporting usage by the
>  IETF as they are presently used for the protocol parameter registries."
> ?
>
>  That would appear to be quite a different statement than proposing that
>  something must be transferred, but still allows identification of the
>  potential issue.
>
>Thoughts?
>/John
>
>Disclaimer: My views alone
>
>