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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2014/11/10 06:51, John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> [BA] A good portion of the complexity here is we are talking about a domain name and trademark that is relevant to multiple communities.
>
> Quite correct - the IANA mark and domain appears relevant to the IETF community,
> due to the thousand or so protocol parameter registries published at that site and
> use of the name in many processes; to the Internet number community due to the
> publication of delegated number registries per RFC7020 and RFC7249; and to the
> DNS community due to their use with respect to administration of one particular
> protocol registry, i.e. the DNS root zone.

This actually points to a solution for at least part of the problem of 
what to do in the odd case that these communities would delegate their 
registries to different operators:

One community (or its registry operator) operates iana.org, and 
redirects the relevant pages for the registries of the other operators 
to the actual pages. As an example, if the protocol parameters registry 
kept iana.org, it would delegate (almost?) everything below 
http://www.iana.org/domains to the DNS community, and so on.

Such a delegation can be made as an internal redirect (the actual 
data/pages come from elsewhere, but are served by iana.org) or as an 
external redirect (if somebody goes to e.g. http://www.iana.org/domains, 
then s/he's redirected to the site of the other operator).

This shows that having different organizations take care of the 
different registries and still sharing iana.org is possible. This of 
course requires that they agree to do that.

But my guess is that agreeing to share iana.org is much easier that to 
agree e.g. about reserved labels (such as .local) in the root zone. The 
later is crucial for the functioning of the Internet, and if that can be 
agreed on, then an agreement on the former should also be possible.

So I very much think that the question of "But what if the registry 
operator function is split up?" cannot be used as an argument for not 
talking about the trademark and domain name transfer.

Regards,    Martin.


> Personally, I would think it absurd for the IETF to abandon use of the term IANA
> simply to avoid discussing arrangements for sharing its use, but then again, in
> the end it is the IETF community's call to make, as interpreted by the leadership.
>
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>