Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/21/2015 6:44 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> John, the premise of legal agreements that deal with exit processes is
>> that the concerns of interest are for circumstances that are not
>> pleasant and cooperative.
> 
> Of course.  The important things about the parameter registries are what
> they contain and how they're available, not what they're called. 

Yeah, that's been a common refrain from various folk.  What's amusing
about it is that we are a community that worries quite about about the
use of names and addresses for getting access to resources.  Yet here,
we are being told they don't matter.

The idea that it won't make much difference if we have to change from a
well-established and heavily used name and address, for getting at the
resources under discussion, seems a tad counter-intuitive...


> If things go kerflooie, we'll find someone else to run the protocol
> registry.  They will need the data from the current registry and the
> processes which are documented (pretty well) in RFCs.  But they don't
> need to call it IANA or to call the web site iana.org.

This seems to take the view that instantaneous obsolescence of the
rather massive infrastructure of documents using that name and address
won't have any interesting operational effects.  That view also doesn't
match typical experience.



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net