Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

Eliot Lear wrote on 05/11/14 01:53:
>> This isn’t true. I suggested an alternative way, which was to ask
>> the IAOC to get the specified issues resolved to their liking
>> without explicitly requiring the conclusion of a supplemental
>> agreement, which is a very specific constraint on the format and
>> outcome of the IAOC’s negotiations.
>> 
> Any agreement can be called a supplemental agreement, but if you are
> not happy with the word "supplemental" I would be happy to see it
> gone, but in any case, I believe you offered wording the other night
> that addressed both of our concerns.  I think there is a mild issue
> with the language that can be addressed editorially.

To me the key here is that as Alissa said, we shouldn't put specific
constrains on the format and outcome at this stage. I think the purpose
of this phase is identify the gaps and set the requirements correctly.

Coming back to trademarks, I think the requirement is to minimize
confusion wrt authoritative protocol parameter registries in a possible
future case when ICANN transfers its IANA function(s) operator to
another entity, and not that the IETF gets IANA.ORG.

I understand that the details of the arrangements to mitigate the
identified risk will be flashed out at the next stage, when a
consolidated proposal is produced and we have a better understanding of
the requirements of other operational communities.

Then, I think, we can discuss specific implementations that will satisfy
all operational communities.

Andrei