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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:16:35PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> that the IETF needs to step up, and assert itself, and assume the
> responsibilities that go with being the standards body it purports to be.
> 

Oy, the Boss of Internetz again.  The IETF does in fact assume the
responsibilities of being that standards body.  The responsibilities
are entirely in the realm of making standards that people can actually
use, rather than standards that ensure continued existence of a paid
bureaucracy.

This "actually used" criterion is the _exact_ reason I keep saying
that control over iana.org isn't something worth trying to get,
because it cannot make any difference to future action.  If in the
event of a registry split there is co-operation, the pointer will be
there.  If there is controversy, we'll have to do an emergency
transition anyway.

Every time I say that, someone says, "Well, in the event of a
controversial split, having a contract term will put you in a better
legal position," as though that is any kind of help.  In the case of
such a split, we will need to put up a new registry at a new URI
immediately, while the legal situation works itself out.  Having done
that, what possible utility will there be in going back?

This isn't being wishy-washy.  It's being clear-eyed and cold about
what _actually_ would be important in the event of a controversial
split.  Keeping a trademark will be among the very least of our
worries, and I think focussing on it is focussing on the form rather
than the content.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]