Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

I agree. 


The terms "associated marks and identifiers" seem somewhat under defined but I'd like to make two points about this the text that reads

2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
      subsequent operators.

A) I don't think we need this 

Yep it would be great if the location where stuff used to be had a pointer to the new location but the protocol registry is largely used by standards people and theses people will know how to find the location of the registry. The only way I can ever find anything in IANA is google. I don't see why we need any trade marks transferred for us to run a parameter registry. If we do need them, we should ask for the right to use them, not ownership. 

B) I think other people will need this more than the IETF does 

I think whoever deals with names is more likely to have a real need for the domain

If people want to transfer these to IETF Trust, great, but I find that possibility pretty unlikely. This is not the hill the we want to die on. We can easily go on without this trademark or domain name. I do not want the important parts of this draft messed up because we got fixated on trying to get something that we do not really need. 

Related to this, I find the phrase "IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement that ..." weird. Does this mean IAOC has to do this? or that IETF wishes that they try to get that? or what? I have no idea, but one thing I am sure about is that this draft is the wrong place and wrong time to change the relationship between IETF and IAOC. This should be phrased such that it is clear it is within in the normal existing relationship of the IETF and IAOC. 

Cullen


On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Agreed. "Cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize confusion"
> gives us enough wiggle-room to be able to manage some likely transition
> situations. The prior language probably doesn't.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
> 
> On 11/2/14, 7:16 AM, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I agree as well. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2014, at 3:41 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alissa's point goes a little beyond my comment on the same
>>> text, but having read this, I share her concerns.
>>> 
>>> S
>>> 
>>>> On 01/11/14 00:11, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> I¹d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of the
>>>> document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns this
>>>> text:
>>>> 
>>>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to
>>>> transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a
>>>> supplemental agreement that- ...
>>>> 
>>>> 2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>>>> subsequent operators."
>>>> 
>>>> My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to two
>>>> operators. So if we end up in a situation where there are multiple
>>>> IANA operators for different registries, how will it be decided who
>>>> gets the existing marks? If I were the current owner of such marks, I
>>>> don¹t see how I could agree to this provision without foreclosing the
>>>> possibility that there may be multiple simultaneous operators in the
>>>> future. This is why I think this requirement should be stated as
>>>> requiring ³cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize
>>>> confusion" associated with marks and identifiers, or some similar
>>>> language that provides a safeguard in the event of transition but
>>>> does not mandate specific transfer actions related to marks and
>>>> identifiers.
>>>> 
>>>> I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires the
>>>> IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of maintaining the
>>>> existing relationship that the IETF has with the IAOC wherein it is
>>>> the IAOC¹s responsibility to determine the format in which is carries
>>>> out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.
>>>> 
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marc Blanchet
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
>>>>> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
>>>>> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
>>>>> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working
>>>>> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our
>>>>> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people
>>>>> send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed
>>>>> or discussed before or during the meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Draft:
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
>