Re: [Ianaplan] numbers community plan

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Marc,

On Jan 7, 2015, at 6:26 PM, Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
> happy new year!

And to you!

> 
> Following up the note John Curran sent to this list (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01482.html) with the pointer to the draft numbers community plan (https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group),  are there any issues that we believe the IAB should consider flagging and discussing?  For the purposes of this WG's discussion, the focus should be scoped to issues that might affect the IETF protocol parameter registries, not general opinions on the numbers proposal [1].

It seems to me that there's some language in the numbers community plan that this group might want to think about:

The relevant section begins on page 10 and is titled: "III.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services stay with the community"

The key words start at the end of page 10 and continue to the end of the section: 

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain it is the expectation of the RIR communities that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA functions operator.  Identifying an organisation, not associated with an IANA operator, that holds these assets permanently will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected  at some point in the future.  It is the preference of the RIR communities that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity  independent of the IANA functions operator that will ensure these assets are used purposefully in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of all operational communities. From the RIR communities' perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and iana.org domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA functions, namely protocol parameters and names."

The consensus on the IPR issue in the WG as I understood it was that the WG wasn't instructing the IAOC/IAB to seek additional agreements about the iana.org name, but also was not ruling it out. So the current document doesn't really provide guidance on what to do if the IETF Trust is asked by other operational communities to accept the role hypothesized here, or to enter into a conversation about possible terms for doing so.

Is there a need for such guidance from the WG?


best,
Suzanne