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

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Miles has said what I meant to say, but better.

So I support what Miles says.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Miles
> Fidelman
> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 23:44
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:03:19PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >> How does that sound to you in principle?
> > My objection to moving the relevant bits to the IETF Trust has never
> > been one of principle.  It's been one of practicality: I don't see any
> > incentive whatsoever for ICANN to give up that property without
> > getting something in return, and I can't think of anything I want to
> > give up more than iana.org in case there's more than one operator.
> >
> > Again, to be clear, I think that would be a very bad outcome.  I don't
> > think it would be good to have to split the iana.org stuff, and I
> > think we should avoid it.  But I think it is preposterous to imagine
> > that ICANN is going to give away an asset just because we want it,
> > without extracting some concession.  Therefore, it'd be fine to say to
> > the IAOC, "Please ask for this."  But if they don't get it, what then?
> >
> > The burden of proof, IMO, is on those who claim that ICANN will simply
> > have to give up control of that asset.  I've yet to see a good
> > argument that they will, and I note it is somewhat unusual in the US
> > for a government department to force a corporation to give up an asset
> > without any compensation.
> 
> As far as the USG is concerned, ICANN is a contractor - nothing more, 
> nothing less.  Generally, unless there are clear exceptions in law, 
> regulation, or contract, work performed under contract is the property 
> of the contractee (USG), not the contractor (ICANN).
> 
> By all rights, IMHO, iana.org should have been registered by either the 
> USG, or SRI - back when John Postel was doing the work; and transferred 
> to the USG when the work moved - with the USG delegating management to 
> ICANN, as part of the contract.  Instead, ICANN unilaterally staked a 
> claim to the domain, by registering it.
> 
> Yes, possession is nine 10ths of the law - but what we're talking about 
> here is an oversight to be rectified, not an overstepping to be ratified.
> 
> Why NOT take the opportunity to at least attempt to fix this.  This is 
> the best opportunity to do so, and perhaps the last that would not 
> involve the potential for hostile litigation at some point down the line.
> 
> As to burden of proof re. whether or not ICANN will "simply give up 
> control" - well.. seems to me that the best way to find out is to run 
> the experiment.  Put it in our proposal, stand fast, and stand fast.  At 
> the very least, it puts IETF in a stronger negotiating position for 
> getting to compromise language.
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>