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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> >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.
> 
> Well, there's a big difference between "talking about the trademark and
> domain name transfer" and directly requesting the reassignment of
> corporate property preemptively for our peace of mind. We currently have

By "talking about the trademark and domain name transfer" Martin clearly meant that we should talk about it here in order to _decide_ what to do about it as part of the transition. Let's avoid playing rhetorical games.

You refer to "the reassignment of corporate property" as if it were an intrinsically threatening thing. But it isn't. ICANN was given the domain and the trademark by the USG as part of a similar - but in some ways, far less legitimate and consensual process - 16 years ago. We are being asked to provide the USG with an institutional re-design that keeps IANA accountable in the absence of the NTIA oversight. If reassigning those assets is a necessary part of the plan, we have every right to ask for it; indeed, we have an obligation to do so.  

> Ideally, we will grant the IAOC the latitude they need to cover our backs,
> rather than being overly prescriptive in the ICG response.

Agreed, but there is nothing "overly prescriptive" about mentioning the trademark and domain as important factors to be dealt with in the transition.