Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Milton L Mueller <> Tue, 10 February 2015 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633C71A8AA0 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWhXlJu54s_t for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7011A0372 for <>; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t1A0PCEN009264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:25:13 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:25:05 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:24:47 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <>
To: Eric Burger <>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:24:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-02-09_04:2015-02-09,2015-02-09,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1502100003
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:25:18 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Trust hold the
> registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting for it.
> >
> >     The IETF is willing to have the IETF Trust hold registration of
> > IANA.ORG, if that is the preference produced from the IANA Stewardship
> > Transition Coordination Group process.

Me too. 

The RFP submission of the numbers community lays to rest the idea that requesting a transfer of the mark and the domain would expose the IETF to unnamed risks of "losing something" that were worse than the risk of not having control of those assets if or when a transfer of the protocol-related IANA functions was required. 

As I noted at the time this issue was first raised, IETF would not be bargaining with ICANN on its own; rather, ICANN would be bargaining with the NTIA and the entire names, numbers and protocol communities to implementing a finalized and integrated ICG proposal. 

Bottom line for me: there would be an incompatibility in these proposals only if the IETF said that it was opposed to the IETF Trust receiving the assets. So I hope you don't say that. An incompatibility would require additional work and "open things up" that would better be left concluded.