Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 05E091A1B9A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kFn5KBRQXmVv for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4046F1A1B21 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by padfb1 with SMTP id fb1so544780pad.8 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=e5p75mHtJI+Fo8ugcG4zHqNKdWocXAeVbXuMM7rjcAg=; b=onPK40z7LlqFt++ALuXefjwp+B4YS42cVj3IEULevvfroGb0MgJ2WqGdjN8NvbaVZU OgnSYl6z/MtffsmQpb9kh9/k2x2c666Qg1dv2ZXAIloyrKhotw9A9Df51vNZrLIADUDS 0NzCKvFIFMmvGAJuhxDdkShsqVMZCycMn8GF6c5yArOnOLudKGggdG30aWGtLB7OIOvG jtN4fPzfCO+s3DaKCvfsjzlLkhW0Td8Wqixz47rg5wWLx2PbP90HuXfausqYEQmtTAWx vOKvJ+wKxTZzpPaO5ICEd5vMqhKZOlryPmTpNAELp3iwAmjiyV2q1WZIvJPwCiQIlaiO Xpsg==
X-Received: by 10.68.133.198 with SMTP id pe6mr35925038pbb.119.1424115397867; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:635d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:635d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ex3sm15559275pdb.23.2015.02.16.11.36.34 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54E246D4.3060303@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:36:52 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/uz0qdt7Oew5L3zBXFreMPKOmaEw>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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, 16 Feb 2015 19:36:40 -0000

Adding to the chorus, +1.

   Brian

On 17/02/2015 05:03, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> There seems to be general agreement that there is not an incompatibility between the RIR proposal requirement and the IETF's
> proposal.
> 
> We would like to determine if there is consensus on the following points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9,
> 2015:
> 
>     With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, both
> are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a
> particular IANA Numbering Services Operator.
> 
>     The IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate for
> holding the trademark and domain.
> 
>     The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the
> IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community.
> 
> 
> 
> If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 UTC on February 19, 2015.
> 
> Leslie/Marc.
>