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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Agree.  Specificity is as important in contractual language as it is in 
a protocol spec.  Lack of clarity would only prolong conflict (e.g., 
litigation) if this clause ever has to be executed.  I'd go further, and 
explicitly add "including registration of the iana.org domain" to the 
language.

Miles Fidelman

Richard Hill wrote:
> Thank you for this, but I still prefer the language that I proposed in my
> previous message, that is:
>
> "2.  results in the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to the
> IETF Trust, with the understanding that current and subsequent operators of
> the IANA function shall be allowed to use them free of charge."
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Alissa
>> Cooper
>> Sent: mardi, 4. novembre 2014 02:27
>> To: Eliot Lear
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Andrew Sullivan
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>>
>>
>> Hi Eliot,
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/3/14, 5:12 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> Hi Eliot,
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that if
>>>>> the IETF/IAB or IETF trust takes control of the name, it do
>> so with the
>>>>> understanding that it take responsibility for seeing that backward
>>>>> compatibility continue for each customer (names, numbers, protocol
>>>>> parameters, in particular) for so long as it is safe to do so.  If
>>>>> someone else wants to take control of the name, they should make that
>>>>> same promise.
>>>> This is so close to the language that I suggested that it’s
>> hard for me to tell the difference between what you’re suggesting
>> and what I suggested. To state the above requirement concisely:
>>>> "Whoever owns the marks and identifiers has responsibility for
>> ensuring backwards compatibility in the event that IANA
>> operations shift to different entit(ies).”
>>>> The requirement is that the owner of the marks/identifiers has
>> to enable a smooth transition of the operations — regardless of
>> whether the marks owner is the same as the operator or different
>> or if there are multiple operators. Because the current owner is
>> ICANN, this requirement would fall on ICANN.
>>>> I would be satisfied if we substitute the above requirement in
>> place of the one currently in the draft about the transfer of
>> marks and identifiers. Do I read your email correctly that you
>> would be satisfied as well?
>>> Very much so!!
>> Cool. So I would suggest something like this:
>>
>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>>     to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>>     agreement that-
>>
>> ...
>>
>>     2.  requires the owner of any associated marks and identifiers
>> to ensure backwards compatibility with subsequent operators.”
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>>> Eliot
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra