Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Mon, 09 February 2015 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 9613F1A89EB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:19:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 u6fYFtBNdUSf for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ia-mailgw.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:851::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AFA21A8980 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:19:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path: x-originating-ip; bh=o5T/BEqdcxD/mJic9yyKB7lZbwDDRsej1HLZNQu+eKM=; b=3N3nWfm4GwupZpG+URvQwBhB+i4oX9GUgZNsm13S6MlKjNyOofkdE+GQdDyg1WnLgvprawK0I7FhV F9dc6mxMB4KBq68huAhr1rOd6PHyNv28MqaRNrY2bLoqg5KnDKkSrBEXaf1lEJKMbeH+DqF5t180Nt aYkK8rsEIExCvcMc=
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.101.249]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:19:51 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from [10.196.222.132] (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:19:52 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:19:50 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DDE1B506-0FE8-444D-AEA3-9A1FD00904EF@apnic.net>
References: <F22D7C95-49EE-4BB9-9ED9-7475736A46C7@cooperw.in> <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info>
To: <ianaplan@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Originating-IP: [203.119.101.249]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/z-Cjw6UQsThW9YvqzOoeTxBBhn0>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] 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, 09 Feb 2015 22:19:59 -0000

> On 9 Feb 2015, at 10:47 pm, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:34:07AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> I took the earlier IANAPlan discussion as deciding that ownership of the
>> name was not worth a possibly contentious process, rather than an IETF
>> desire not to hold the name.
> 
> That was how I took the earlier discussion too.  I will also say that,
> in my own case, my opposition to adding iana.org and the IANA trade
> mark to our list of transitions must haves was exactly, "Not worth a
> possibly contentious process."  I think we should not bargain for such
> a change, because I don't think it gives us anything that would be
> worth giving anything up for.  But if someone else wants to engage in
> such bargaining, I think the IETF Trust is a fine place for the name
> or trademark or both to land.

For what its worth, I can live with Andrew's summary. I strongly 
agree that its a fine place for the trademark to land through the IETF's trust 
mechanism. I'd like to think that the associated zone contents are sufficient
dormant that it carries no further substantive decision process no matter 
where it lands, but I'm personally not as convinced of that supposition as 
Andrew appears to be.

  Geoff