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

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> > 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.

That sounded reasonable at first, but when I think about the names community, or at least the ongoing process of RZF management and modifications, I see little reason why they would care about the IANA domain or trademark per se. 
I could see why the numbers community cares about the .arpa domain, but not so much the IANA domain. 
Perhaps the IETF _is_ the best place for those resources to live. 

[MD] 
> Quite correct - the IANA mark and domain appears relevant to the
[snip] 
> 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.

Interesting approach. Sounds feasible to me.