Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 09 February 2015 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8F01A1B6E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6TylBIRJZiT2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCDA81A1A9A for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l15so19883254wiw.4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:35:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=7scwEe71vXhtnUI/RDJ/LStNUhHaur/LVaUib2wBjkg=; b=1AILLeLwwmbotNLIc8mxKPuYld11m1YU3Z3zC0z9hVnnE5KaGl96hmJI66oOEIdxa8 4m3qLrFA/W2B3QEIhvYmBWM8IDRj1u1Hj4H5731Si1W9tVNfaLc6bnSz6YKQaOGVMVPH /TpvL2qr9J73PkIBaib2KdeH7v/CAYl3voXLtrals8sCokw1v/5Arsty4fAg9RxZ9AN9 KPrX7KHlwJCv1BiVxXE2CRA4sauNAoQj6bbNCpj8BlIgk7cSVeTCSKWXh/fZZBch+FY2 INfErYNANr3HffDGAhwovaUJrbisc30O4RKVH5SxAprC72TJCxq2UBj0kYc5u0305q0m +Uig==
X-Received: by 10.194.134.68 with SMTP id pi4mr44340404wjb.101.1423506947562; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:35:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CFB653FB-B10A-44E4-9E75-8FCD011F7B7C@isoc.org>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <AC790ADC-C4CC-4D8E-B11A-138FF58D6D8D@standardstrack.com> <CFB653FB-B10A-44E4-9E75-8FCD011F7B7C@isoc.org>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtrS_J_QTfS_RzZPQx27Bnzdzg_NofbFYEjsLg0y4ms0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01175e89f1e4b3050eac0936
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/j5AZ9QaCbfrmUJMZyxADehw-8CA>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:35:51 -0000

I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed.

In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a
recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain.  There is the issue
of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA functions are
no longer handled by a single operator.  Ideally the ICG will come up with
language that describes the process by which this is decided among the
IETF, RIRs and names communities.  And of course, this process would need
to be agreed to by the IETF trust.

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>; wrote:

>
> > On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>;
> wrote:
> >
> > I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Trust
> hold the registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting for
> it.
>
> Can’t we agree on these two bits:
>
> With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, both are
> associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA
> Numbering Services Operator.
>
> The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark
> and domain.
>
> Ray
> no hats
>
> >
> >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates to:
> >>
> >>    The IETF is willing to have the IETF Trust hold registration of
> >> IANA.ORG, if that is the preference produced from the IANA Stewardship
> >> Transition Coordination Group process.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>