Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 09 February 2015 15:04 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 A496D1A19E4 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 vxbul86teG0u for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0F11A079D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.28.149] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19F4WFc009574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:35 -0800
Message-ID: <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:04:30 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ianaplan@ietf.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>
In-Reply-To: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/kgl7tha2sb_6jKrdzbbdg6b3-qk>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 15:04:40 -0000
On 2/9/2015 6:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:34:07AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >> I took the earlier IANAPlan discussion as deciding that ownership of the >> name was not worth a possibly contentious process, rather than an IETF >> desire not to hold the name. > > That was how I took the earlier discussion too. I will also say that, > in my own case, my opposition to adding iana.org and the IANA trade > mark to our list of transitions must haves was exactly, "Not worth a > possibly contentious process." I think we should not bargain for such > a change, because I don't think it gives us anything that would be > worth giving anything up for. But if someone else wants to engage in > such bargaining, I think the IETF Trust is a fine place for the name > or trademark or both to land. 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. This leaves a question of name /use/ policies and procedures that probably need to be explicit as part of the hand-off to the Trust. I'm not clear whether that essentially means essentially defining a name sub-registry, but it has to cover some set of administrative and operational formalities. In purely pro forma terms it does not seem prudent for the IETF Trust to simple be passive and accept whatever is defined by others, if we are taking on responsibility for asserting the policies and procedures associated with maintenance and use of the name. But it's entirely possible that we could come close to passivity, leaving the IETF role merely as one of approval, along the lines of: as long as the associated policies and procedures are acceptable to the IETF Trust. And then we leave the details of that assessment to the Trust. (And if the Trust wants to be more active in formulating P&Ps that it finds acceptable, that's dandy too...) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Dan Schlitt
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Peterson, Jon
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Peterson, Jon
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Geoff Huston
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jefsey
- [Ianaplan] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the … Alissa Cooper
- [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Jari Arkko