From nobody Mon Feb 2 09:55:27 2015 Return-Path: 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 118781A8733 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.632 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 TdmKKyVBHdmJ for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 0CDC11A797C for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from 249.174.199.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.199.174.249]:40838 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YILDX-0005X5-5W; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:55:23 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:55:06 +0100 To: Alissa Cooper ,ianaplan@ietf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <9EBC8FF1-5F6D-4EB8-BB44-B378F421242A@cooperw.in> References: <9EBC8FF1-5F6D-4EB8-BB44-B378F421242A@cooperw.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_-1678732748==.ALT" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:55:26 -0000 --=====================_-1678732748==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Alissa, As far as I am concerned, I understand that the "Libre" has no specific "internal" interest in the ICG anymore, since our only link was the preeminence of the IAB as an ICANN accountability master. They have now severed that link and transferred it to the NTIA, which is for us an external stakeholder just as any other one. This also means that the ICG is for us another stakeholder. Since we favor an omnistakeholder approach, we are certainly interested in external relations with the ICG, the same as with the IETF, IAB, IEEE, W3C, NDNconsortium, Unicode consortium, IGF, the members of the GAC, ICANN, ITU, and everyone else. However, we do not understand how most of them wish/plan to establish such relations. Our own plan is at the image of our concepts and capacities: a cooperative company of the catenet (CCC) where every shareholder has one vote. This is a simple concept but not a simple task to gather the initial founders, write the appropriate by-laws, and specify, develop, and operate the corresponding networked management tools. So we hope we can incorporate as a seed, with a good global command of our project, before the completion of the ICANN/NTIA agreement. This does not prevent earlier relations. Please advise as to the best way for both of us to proceed. Thank you. jfc morfin At 01:56 31/01/2015, Alissa Cooper wrote: >All, >I realize there has been significant discussion on this thread, so >the note below from the ICG may appear belated, but I wanted to >share it nonetheless. > >The ICG suggests that you take all comments the ICG has forwarded to >you from >http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ >about your proposal or the process of creating it as if they were >made inside your process and address them as you normally would. > >The ICG is aware of the comments. If the ICG has specific questions >to you based on the comments we will explicitly ask them to you as >part of our normal ICG process just like any other question we may have. > >Let me know if you have questions. > >Thanks, >Alissa on behalf of the ICG > >On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper ><alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: > >>After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, >>the ICG received the following comment: >>http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html >>_______________________________________________ >>Ianaplan mailing list >>Ianaplan@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > >_______________________________________________ >Ianaplan mailing list >Ianaplan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --=====================_-1678732748==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear Alissa,

As far as I am concerned, I understand that the "Libre" has no specific "internal" interest in the ICG anymore, since our only link was the preeminence of the IAB as an ICANN accountability master. They have now severed that link and transferred it to the NTIA, which is for us an external stakeholder just as any other one. This also means that the ICG is for us another stakeholder.

Since we favor an omnistakeholder approach, we are certainly interested in external relations with the ICG, the same as with the IETF, IAB, IEEE, W3C, NDNconsortium, Unicode consortium, IGF, the members of the GAC, ICANN, ITU, and everyone else. However, we do not understand how most of them wish/plan to establish such relations.

Our own plan is at the image of our concepts and capacities: a cooperative company of the catenet (CCC) where every shareholder has one vote. This is a simple concept but not a simple task to gather the initial founders, write the appropriate by-laws, and specify, develop, and operate the corresponding networked management tools. So we hope we can incorporate as a seed, with a good global command of our project, before the completion of the ICANN/NTIA agreement.

This does not prevent earlier relations. Please advise as to the best way for both of us to proceed.

Thank you.
jfc morfin


At 01:56 31/01/2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
All,
I realize there has been significant discussion on this thread, so the note below from the ICG may appear belated, but I wanted to share it nonetheless.

The ICG suggests that you take all comments the ICG has forwarded to you from http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/ about your proposal or the process of creating it as if they were made inside your process and address them as you normally would.

The ICG is aware of the comments. If the ICG has specific questions to you based on the comments we will explicitly ask them to you as part of our normal ICG process just like any other question we may have.

Let me know if you have questions.

Thanks,
Alissa on behalf of the ICG

On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the ICG received the following comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
--=====================_-1678732748==.ALT-- From nobody Sun Feb 8 21:55:31 2015 Return-Path: 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 276FD1A0067 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 y4T-XwBBf6Me for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83CA1A005D for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB10209CA for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 00:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:55:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; s=mesmtp; bh=z3yGXl3K+Zzig+1VVkzj7ui5HTM=; b=0xIw 9xviV5p8nMYs73srtETPVwZ84unV8d+1Yogik5RWnF/mTftLa2/uDz1omd8ry209 ALuQySz77wkaaRf2YUhrfOJrjDfilRbLEkSNCCpJaIhB1tns19jBm5ur9b0B9/aT Os5YLZknlCeJCFJKLF4eAWg45KuXoE+kR+cAK1Q= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=z3yGXl3K+Zzig+1V Vkzj7ui5HTM=; b=UDPPw3D6QhgdZ2zNTPxalx40uIJcqPeyve+wjwTViZNhLJjq l2sGZjhKLw+O0ao5nLUGJZ6TyF/5j/sBFTuO7C9iXaQfpwBm+VAQrrpLh996gNht ZXAiW4i25S/YFPvCZBz0lYF1jOjWRgpw1PBEgdntqkGxN2nwP1M4jenYHJs= X-Sasl-enc: KKOEhAgR2QKrfrnPnirKOgf2kEL4F0HcjKWcaCPA+CTR 1423461325 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2F0C3C00290 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 00:55:24 -0500 (EST) From: Alissa Cooper Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78D33230-5ABB-417C-9664-1100B116CB09" Message-Id: Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 21:55:24 -0800 To: ianaplan@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Subject: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:55:29 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_78D33230-5ABB-417C-9664-1100B116CB09 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Dear IANAPLAN WG, The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response [1] = did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding = the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of its = transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal [2] says:=20= "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the = expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated = with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA = Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the = IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these = assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or = operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the = Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG = domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA = Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are = used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire = community. =46rom the Internet Number Community=92s perspective, the = IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.=94=20 The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the = transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these = aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers = and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals = to reconcile them? Please either send us your response or let us know that you=92ll need = more time by February 21, 2015. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG [1] = https://www.dropbox.com/s/txu310uikebwfbj/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response= -09.pdf?dl=3D0 [2] = https://www.dropbox.com/s/j9xzphbzczl2372/ICG%20RFP%20Number%20Resource%20= Proposal.pdf?dl=3D0= --Apple-Mail=_78D33230-5ABB-417C-9664-1100B116CB09 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Dear IANAPLAN WG,

The = IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response [1] did = not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the = IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of = its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal [2] = says: 

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation = of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA = Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services = Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering = Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will = facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be = selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number = Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to = an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order = to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for = the benefit of the entire community. =46rom the Internet Number = Community=92s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable = candidate for this role.=94 

The numbers proposal sees these = changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters = proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as = incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be = willing to modify their proposals to reconcile = them?

Please either send us your response or = let us know that you=92ll need more time by February 21, = 2015.

Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf = of the ICG

= --Apple-Mail=_78D33230-5ABB-417C-9664-1100B116CB09-- From nobody Sun Feb 8 23:35:48 2015 Return-Path: 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 BA0B51A007E for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 MN6adPQ0TDui for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787F31A007A for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 23:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 42613 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2015 07:35:43 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2015 07:35:43 -0000 Date: 9 Feb 2015 07:35:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20150209073521.1893.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: alissa@cooperw.in Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:35:47 -0000 Hi from Singapore. In the ICG session this morning, I noticed the slide in the numbers presentation saying that they want the iana.org domain and trademark transferred to the IETF trust. (As I recall, that's what it said, stronger than saying the trust would be OK.) There was some discussion from the floor, the gist of which was that the name is not important. As someone said, it could be foobar.org and it would work just the same so long as they have the data. >The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols >parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible >would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to >reconcile them? I believe that the archive of ianaplan will show that we considered the same issues in ianaplan, and came to the same conclusion that the domain name isn't worth a lot of hassle. If the operator changes, and ICANN is willing to give us iana.org, that's fine, but if they aren't we can call it something else. In view of the discussion today, I'd start by asking the RIRs whether it's really a big deal. If they think it is, from what I've seen ianaplan wouldn't have trouble with language that allows the transfer if not requiring it. R's, John From nobody Mon Feb 9 02:48:35 2015 Return-Path: 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 BD2DD1A0113 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 02:48:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Gp4TR9WYcF05 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 02:48:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34231A00FA for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 02:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62782CEEF; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:48:29 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRFJytik9sGb; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:48:28 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC442CED4; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:48:26 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FF8C3CF-927F-40F1-B1E3-CF7EB1227E05"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:48:23 +0800 Message-Id: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> References: To: Alissa Cooper X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:48:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_6FF8C3CF-927F-40F1-B1E3-CF7EB1227E05 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The IETF proposal did not set it as a requirement that ownership of IANA.ORG be transferred as a part of the transition. The RIR community=20= needs to think if they believe it really is a requirement. But I guess = that=20 the question for us is from the IETF perspective, if other communities=20= believe they need that, is the IETF community OK with that? If we are,=20= there are some implications to the IETF Trust, some rules to think about for various future same/different/partially different IANA operator = scenarios, and some negotiations about these. I think we can set most of that aside for the moment, as details to worry about later. But what is the = high-level guidance from the IETF community on this? =46rom my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the=20= IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our proposal - it stays at the =93not required=94 state, is the IETF = community OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it. FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that our opinion was =93not required=94 rather than that we=92d oppose it. If that is right, then the answer is perhaps that we=92d be fine with that. Do I read that right, and what do others think? Jari --Apple-Mail=_6FF8C3CF-927F-40F1-B1E3-CF7EB1227E05 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU2JB4AAoJEM80gCTQU46qOuQQAJyShB5BnKRR3sN6kTsz8Sdu VLSQw3r2p5UQwI57ouBUgrXrg0AzQ8K15OMXQXCrila2GzROJRrGL6HnsJd2O93Q 2nkwdwxRt4aY6KgKbEdvA249BvdwS3R4xb86Ci4RavwVErITOb9oC1hvgNP8Foau wGgL4beC0rhrO1ly8P4yhjFjtoPP5bcFDcxR6W+BS5A2HNGfvgjKSDZxL6UEpeLw 4mpbuyeyrk8d2vmEuIks++x7fYhJ9U7hR496Oh9MI1ddlwbUmXZXGLQ1dU4nVI3t zKQoSraydDaw5tw2rgZxZrONGbo+uwgXxyd11vH7DHbpKJapZ3IQt7u3yukZpE2+ a4R38vdVnwWHFwj7bcCu8Z+gycBrqqrNpWKR5ZYMmtFSS3p5EdHHUDZKF4vNY5F0 Oo/p5fdITOnO0OsKr7XfwUJi7tVuYoW0J4r7r3rmAtq7iqHFLAIyvGThmJTkrm0H P5hk5kGk3Nr2FINxIBxlt61mS8GUbHzrlJkYttZXebQrxli+sOcxX1M4gExUqRNC 9UxeLaZyVGLP4G4r+f995NL+FXiKzntoFmA0DobLX4YhE6YojCUBO/jc22rNCoa9 +IPFoa1rQF+H2tnZH70SabSpYeZRVmls7jIU1i/qJKIc5RT12swpMZlB3n525Wyt 6RrWeneT0stqDetEhTNt =5054 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_6FF8C3CF-927F-40F1-B1E3-CF7EB1227E05-- From nobody Mon Feb 9 04:49:20 2015 Return-Path: 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 8B76C1A0382 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 joVbhp0S7VPl for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40C61A037D for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 04:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YKnm3-000EIi-UC; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:49:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:49:06 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Jari Arkko , Alissa Cooper Message-ID: <2067E4C1AA37CE64017568E8@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:49:18 -0000 --On Monday, February 09, 2015 18:48 +0800 Jari Arkko wrote: > From my perspective the question that we should try to answer > at the IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not > changing our proposal - it stays at the "not required" > state, is the IETF community OK with a change of ownership? > The IETF and RIR proposals are only incompatible if they > require the change _and_ we oppose it. > > FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that > our opinion was "not required" rather than that we'd > oppose it. If that is right, then the answer is perhaps that > we'd be fine with that. Do I read that right, and what do > others think? As you know, I've suggested several times (on and off this list) that we announce willingness to accept the names if that is what others want. If that means we also would need to work out arrangements for delegations, such as who formally tells us that a change has occurred and we should change the nameservers for that zone or that the IANA function is being split up and that we should manage the is top-level zone and to whom we should delegate subsidiary domains, that should be fine and I hope we can avoid spending a lot of time on it. Put differently, we still don't think it is necessary to make specific changes in this area but are happy to cooperate with the numbers community (and/or others) if they decide that is the best thing to do. I think that is consistent with the comments in your note. john From nobody Mon Feb 9 06:34:49 2015 Return-Path: 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 AD6B21A040C for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 R4IdNEM9TgUd for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFE21A040B for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.28.149] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19EY98J001956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:34:13 -0800 Message-ID: <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:34:07 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko , Alissa Cooper References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:34:13 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:34:48 -0000 On 2/9/2015 2:48 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the > IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our > proposal - it stays at the not required state, is the IETF community > OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are > only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it. > > FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that > our opinion was not required rather than that wed oppose it. If > that is right, then the answer is perhaps that wed be fine with > that. Do I read that right, and what do others think? Based on the response the IETF original sent, your text, above here, seems compatible with the preference that seems to have emerged from ICANN. 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. In operational terms, if the IETF has to change its IANA-related registry activities to use a name other than IANA.org, it will cost us effort. So the benefit of having the IETF Trust hold the registration for IANA.org is that the IETF is not likely to suffer inconvenience with respect to the name, if the IETF-related IANA registry operation is moved. Of course, it might not suffer any if the name is held by another entity (other than ICANN) but the risk is higher. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 9 06:47:02 2015 Return-Path: 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 004801A047A for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 LdMdMAyFNaJm for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 501951A0451 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from 249.174.199.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.199.174.249]:56472 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YKpTh-00038H-Gh; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 06:38:21 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:38:17 +0100 To: Jari Arkko ,Alissa Cooper From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:38:28 -0000 Dear Jari, IMHO the initial question is to know if the string "IANA" is to be a reserved string associated to the Internet Technology Repository whatever the TLD. If yes the Internet Technology documented by which SDO (since as per RFC 6852 there might be several ones in competition). If not is only "iana.org" ? What about "iana.arpa" ? As you know, the IUWG works on the support of CLASS "FL" (Free/Libre). Should we agree some common reservation about these names or strings? FYI we plan to support a CLASS syntax as discussed by http://dnsa.org (in French). jfc PS. Alissa, I am not sure you answered my previous mail. It would help making sure that IN and FL CLASSes support names like "IANA.ORG" in the same manner. At 11:48 09/02/2015, Jari Arkko wrote: >The IETF proposal did not set it as a requirement that ownership of >IANA.ORG be transferred as a part of the transition. The RIR community >needs to think if they believe it really is a requirement. But I guess that >the question for us is from the IETF perspective, if other communities >believe they need that, is the IETF community OK with that? If we are, >there are some implications to the IETF Trust, some rules to think about >for various future same/different/partially different IANA operator scenarios, >and some negotiations about these. I think we can set most of that aside >for the moment, as details to worry about later. But what is the high-level >guidance from the IETF community on this? > > From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the >IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our >proposal - it stays at the "not required" state, is the IETF community >OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are >only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it. > >FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that >our opinion was "not required" rather than that we'd oppose it. If >that is right, then the answer is perhaps that we'd be fine with >that. Do I read that right, and what do others think? > >Jari > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ianaplan mailing list >Ianaplan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 9 07:10:15 2015 Return-Path: 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 E72581A044D for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:48:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Qbvnr_IL9wbZ for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619431A040C for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A7DBE7B; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:48:39 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGHBdQGtAFwe; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:48:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.16.29.43] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B46FFBE75; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:48:32 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54D8C89E.1080403@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:47:58 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jari Arkko , Alissa Cooper References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:48:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/02/15 10:48, Jari Arkko wrote: > FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that our > opinion was “not required” rather than that we’d oppose it. If that > is right, then the answer is perhaps that we’d be fine with that. > Do I read that right, and what do others think? I agree. I think that was very clear from the mailing list discussion. In response to the question asked though I think we should (if this mail thread is not eventually a sufficient answer) make sure we say that we see no conflict between the RIR position and ours. They differ a little, but not much, and without any incompatibility at all. I think we need to explicitly say that because a simple "yes" answer to the question asked would be ambiguous as to whether or not we do or do not see a conflict, and I can imagine that some people might argue that such an answer requires another iteration of q&a, or to claim there's a whole bunch more work needed when it's not, either of which would be a pity. S. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2MieAAoJEC88hzaAX42i+cUH/i+/ufzXlFt5o+kWv1hVMD/2 UBDad0eMuceNi3t0+K8G/efbfpGcbKYS7pqNVGXJ5Q9AQDQo3rt8PzpYyg1cWW9I lY1wGaDsZCDB7geSdLRj8ZfRirTlTn1cbqhdxb5VbAVraWp8CO4Y+O0OpqiVl8Qj JNIB4m97OXrrK57IBbLJQL4gmcHerYM5KiqR6OHjulGCeGdj/eXsv9UPeCu5gz8C zau0A+wr9Mwnm4gifzMh366SNrCTyi8ThMEVH7ov2G66h+du22+JuQSWpRfz7KBR G1M1sf3BvGQyxNOHwG2T+zFzND3jz2zppEXZ1R4xx3lC4vgShDhDoikO9UueSiw= =6jtJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Feb 9 07:13:08 2015 Return-Path: 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 57E3E1A0451 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 4oO7IGDyKSJt for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D431A044D for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 06:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [101.100.166.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C97168A031 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:47:55 +0800 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ianaplan@ietf.org Message-ID: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:49:21 -0000 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. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Mon Feb 9 07:23:29 2015 Return-Path: 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 A496D1A19E4 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 vxbul86teG0u for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0F11A079D for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.28.149] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19F4WFc009574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 07:04:35 -0800 Message-ID: <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:04:30 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Sullivan , ianaplan@ietf.org References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:04:35 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:04:40 -0000 On 2/9/2015 6:47 AM, Andrew Sullivan 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. In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates to: 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. This leaves a question of name /use/ policies and procedures that probably need to be explicit as part of the hand-off to the Trust. I'm not clear whether that essentially means essentially defining a name sub-registry, but it has to cover some set of administrative and operational formalities. In purely pro forma terms it does not seem prudent for the IETF Trust to simple be passive and accept whatever is defined by others, if we are taking on responsibility for asserting the policies and procedures associated with maintenance and use of the name. But it's entirely possible that we could come close to passivity, leaving the IETF role merely as one of approval, along the lines of: as long as the associated policies and procedures are acceptable to the IETF Trust. And then we leave the details of that assessment to the Trust. (And if the Trust wants to be more active in formulating P&Ps that it finds acceptable, that's dandy too...) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 9 08:59:00 2015 Return-Path: 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 00B371A1B0B for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:42:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 tjFsom6adkjf for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:42:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A4A21A1B0E for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 08:42:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=gb1hv9CuurmCHDC2b5pr8hvTBf+jyBXymqzAvqlEseQ=; b=ZfvbjdeCKLxDI6BIxurOJHJpLDvYVJaDOeClCyAQnUvxgOYBbsvW7WLYQaaIWt15SwN2QRkyqVj1FsJoTfTTbu7ZJcGvesy/OrgpDcD+WAjaxQauKo0LvbiBLQXGf7N3VUitxIqnYsjVbxE1aXOQ4x1uzObWFYddWr0xu49cNtk=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:55787 helo=[192.168.15.137]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YKrPN-00076y-T9 for ianaplan@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 08:42:07 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F98CF85E-DAE3-4A24-8FD3-FDF0346A4E68"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b4 From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:41:59 -0500 Message-Id: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 16:42:57 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F98CF85E-DAE3-4A24-8FD3-FDF0346A4E68 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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. > On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >=20 > In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates to: >=20 > 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. --Apple-Mail=_F98CF85E-DAE3-4A24-8FD3-FDF0346A4E68 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU2ONYAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW3z9YP/RNwhMu8rK4D45dPxqtIrf91 JuLm/Vgf+dW6l+1AFpXHMN0Bolj/ZhpaCOnqVEUXlLQFz3iu93euvv8f/0W/vAzb OC33wik4x3gbWeiwAU3iWK3VO/9UREqMYcqGssWdR66LYdQsRTKv1kEPe8zhiC5+ 5qEXR8qXP5+0+FTxL5IMDA00kZg5bMXqm/xNe+4DgNQP6Pvd2ITtBUonr2J/6Q2W UNqmFXjyZyIg9qLUXcOOoPgF6KaXlgS3AJR0uuqesexmt+M+8Me6dvHPGNzwzeg9 kN9aj1UPOJtJfnz7ZgHMJpDwh6rxg8prsfsPV/zpPMZLuqlBzYPA8qL2WdpgPvvT YkcKhRuB2t/UDSzEEaxoNFU5fTfANcUxd4R61U28xcClKbX3sL70tC+P1b80s1T2 b7Y9DT+Bxmxa62BZX+Jv6wJvsRSd3geADbeHPg5x/YqB2jcbRK41VntMOqkvB3fp dZx+EHH7ADUnUDFGY+KX0FZiMEtcuDPOmZ18LLXvesTCyo8XbOCD3kVfHF0d8frr RIW9rutaKVoxjIJRSXcrwXbnrR3XLiCvKqrNpEbtmtkuJv1/oNE3lTZVhI8r/anW 8FqYyomTVBETXiS2zI10r1oI2San4oYM2wqN14MZrgRuS54ZkfvDwqvAzoC8AhQ/ EaTzzFnAHO/vy6OMZMHE =duXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F98CF85E-DAE3-4A24-8FD3-FDF0346A4E68-- From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:16:11 2015 Return-Path: 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 4E4341A1B47 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:00:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 F-H6-DPxnjCq for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0079.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3F4C1A1B4A for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:00:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (72.237.59.193) by BLUPR06MB228.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:00:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ray Pelletier In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:01:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> To: Eric Burger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0201CA0006.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.191.144) To BLUPR06MB228.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.152) Authentication-Results: standardstrack.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR06MB228; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BLUPR06MB228; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04825EA361 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6049001)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(46102003)(57306001)(33656002)(42186005)(40100003)(122386002)(82746002)(92566002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(50466002)(47776003)(87976001)(83716003)(93886004)(117156001)(66066001)(23676002)(76176999)(50986999)(110136001)(50226001)(86362001)(36756003)(2950100001)(15975445007)(77096005)(77156002)(62966003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR06MB228; H:[192.168.0.13]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR06MB228; X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2015 17:00:04.6851 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR06MB228 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:00:09 -0000 > On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger = wrote: >=20 > 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. Can=E2=80=99t we agree on these two bits: 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.=20 The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the = trademark and domain. Ray no hats >=20 >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates to: >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:28:24 2015 Return-Path: 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 0C8C11A1BC5 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:07:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 R4i8KbmZrHlE for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBCA51A1BCE for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.28.149] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19H6srA014042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:06:57 -0800 Message-ID: <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:06:52 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:06:57 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:07:04 -0000 On 2/9/2015 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > 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 Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain. Those look like a useful preface to the text that I suggested. The result is a reasonable sequence: 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 Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain. 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, if the associated policies and procedures are acceptable to the IETF Trust. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:29:51 2015 Return-Path: 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 4853D1A1B2C for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 NpUU7W6RmjSm for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls4.std.com [192.74.137.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF06D1A1B6B for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (mail@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19H9HZx012410; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:19 -0500 Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (mail@localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19H99f71835868; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (schlitt@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id t19H99tp1837811; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell01.TheWorld.com: schlitt owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:09:04 -0500 From: Dan Schlitt To: Andrew Sullivan In-Reply-To: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:10:09 -0000 I did not comment during the earlier discussion. Just keeping up with all the postings was hard. By the time I caught up and was ready to voice my opinion others had already made the point better than I. Dave and Andrew state well the conclusion I came to. It would be a good outcome if the ownership was transfered but not worth a fight with the current owner. I didn't view ICAN as an opponent in this transition as it seems others did. I thought it could be an act of good will if the ownership of the names was just voluntarily transfered with out the fuss of putting it in transition documents. All the legal argumentation that took place in the WG was really beside the point. /dan -- Dan Schlitt schlitt@Theworld.com On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Andrew Sullivan 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. > > A > > From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:37:28 2015 Return-Path: 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 0D8B31A1B24 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:22:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 0IjcbUbspRbL for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0632.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80331A0010 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (72.237.59.193) by BLUPR06MB226.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:21:47 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ray Pelletier In-Reply-To: <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:23:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0201CA0016.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.191.154) To BLUPR06MB226.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.140) Authentication-Results: bbiw.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR06MB226; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BLUPR06MB226; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04825EA361 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(6049001)(479174004)(377454003)(24454002)(50226001)(92566002)(33656002)(57306001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(50466002)(23676002)(82746002)(86362001)(76176999)(50986999)(83716003)(46102003)(87976001)(2950100001)(77096005)(15975445007)(47776003)(122386002)(42186005)(77156002)(117156001)(110136001)(40100003)(93886004)(36756003)(66066001)(62966003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR06MB226; H:[192.168.0.13]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR06MB226; X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2015 17:21:47.1474 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR06MB226 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:22:17 -0000 Dave, > On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 > On 2/9/2015 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: >> 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.=20 >>=20 >> The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the = trademark and domain. >=20 >=20 > Those look like a useful preface to the text that I suggested. The > result is a reasonable sequence: >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the > trademark and domain. >=20 > 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, if the associated policies and > procedures are acceptable to the IETF Trust. I=E2=80=99m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an = independent body with its own processes and limits. Thus =E2=80=9CThe IETF is willing to = have the IETF Trust hold=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D I find troublesome. IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when there = is=20 an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. I think = they can say that when asked they would follow their processes and take a decision at = that time. I think the IETF can point to rfc-editor.org and say that when the Trust = was asked in 2009 to=20 hold the domain and allow its use by successor contractors they did so;=20= =20 Perhaps language like - The IETF would support a decision by the IETF = Trust to hold the=20 IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community. It = would be my expectation that the Trust would ask the community for input before it took such a = decision. Ray no hats >=20 >=20 >=20 > d/ > --=20 > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:43:21 2015 Return-Path: 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 A4C2F1A1DBD for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:39:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 SH05mhM2rFFu for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:38:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2FEF1A1BFE for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:38:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.28.149] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t19Hcpex014906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:38:55 -0800 Message-ID: <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:38:49 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Pelletier , Dave Crocker References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> In-Reply-To: <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:38:55 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:39:01 -0000 On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > I’m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an independent body > with its own processes and limits. Thus “The IETF is willing to have the IETF > Trust hold…” I find troublesome. > > IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when there is > an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. Ray, Thanks for the clarification. Point taken. The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the ISTCG/IETF side of things usefully. So again, perhaps a conjunction set: 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. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:52:19 2015 Return-Path: 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 0A0551A1EE8 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:40:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 n-dDCbjCEfL8 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:40:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7111A1BFE for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (72.237.59.193) by BY2PR06MB234.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.47.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:40:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ray Pelletier In-Reply-To: <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:41:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0201CA0007.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.191.145) To BY2PR06MB234.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.47.20) Authentication-Results: bbiw.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB234; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BY2PR06MB234; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04825EA361 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(6049001)(24454002)(479174004)(377454003)(86362001)(66066001)(46102003)(110136001)(77096005)(47776003)(62966003)(77156002)(36756003)(50986999)(76176999)(2950100001)(92566002)(122386002)(50466002)(82746002)(23676002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83716003)(87976001)(40100003)(42186005)(117156001)(93886004)(57306001)(50226001)(33656002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR06MB234; H:[192.168.0.13]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR06MB234; X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2015 17:40:32.6426 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR06MB234 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:40:42 -0000 wfm ray > On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 > On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: >> I=E2=80=99m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an = independent body >> with its own processes and limits. Thus =E2=80=9CThe IETF is willing = to have the IETF >> Trust hold=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D I find troublesome. >>=20 >> IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when = there is=20 >> an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. >=20 >=20 > Ray, >=20 > Thanks for the clarification. Point taken. >=20 > The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the ISTCG/IETF > side of things usefully. >=20 >=20 > So again, perhaps a conjunction set: >=20 > 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. >=20 > ThE IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate for > holding the trademark and domain. >=20 > 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. >=20 > d/ >=20 > --=20 > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 9 10:59:03 2015 Return-Path: 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 5C8F01A1B6E for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 6TylBIRJZiT2 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (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 CCDA81A1A9A for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l15so19883254wiw.4 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:35:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=7scwEe71vXhtnUI/RDJ/LStNUhHaur/LVaUib2wBjkg=; b=1AILLeLwwmbotNLIc8mxKPuYld11m1YU3Z3zC0z9hVnnE5KaGl96hmJI66oOEIdxa8 4m3qLrFA/W2B3QEIhvYmBWM8IDRj1u1Hj4H5731Si1W9tVNfaLc6bnSz6YKQaOGVMVPH /TpvL2qr9J73PkIBaib2KdeH7v/CAYl3voXLtrals8sCokw1v/5Arsty4fAg9RxZ9AN9 KPrX7KHlwJCv1BiVxXE2CRA4sauNAoQj6bbNCpj8BlIgk7cSVeTCSKWXh/fZZBch+FY2 INfErYNANr3HffDGAhwovaUJrbisc30O4RKVH5SxAprC72TJCxq2UBj0kYc5u0305q0m +Uig== X-Received: by 10.194.134.68 with SMTP id pi4mr44340404wjb.101.1423506947562; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:35:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 10:35:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: Ray Pelletier Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01175e89f1e4b3050eac0936 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:35:51 -0000 --089e01175e89f1e4b3050eac0936 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed. In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain. There is the issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA functions are no longer handled by a single operator. Ideally the ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which this is decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger > wrote: > > > > I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Trus= t > hold the registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting fo= r > it. > > Can=E2=80=99t we agree on these two bits: > > With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, both are > associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IAN= A > Numbering Services Operator. > > The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark > and domain. > > Ray > no hats > > > > >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> > >> > >> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates to: > >> > >> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ianaplan mailing list > > Ianaplan@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > --089e01175e89f1e4b3050eac0936 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed.=C2=A0
In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than ju= st a recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain.=C2=A0 There is t= he issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA func= tions are no longer handled by a single operator.=C2=A0 Ideally the ICG wil= l come up with language that describes the process by which this is decided= among the IETF, RIRs and names communities.=C2=A0 And of course, this proc= ess would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust.=C2=A0

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:= 01 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> wrote:
>
> I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Tru= st hold the registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting f= or it.

Can=E2=80=99t we agree on these two bits:

With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, both are associated with the IANA Number= ing Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator.
The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark a= nd domain.

Ray
no hats

>
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates t= o:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The IETF is willing to have the IETF Trust hold regis= tration of
>> IANA.ORG, if tha= t is the preference produced from the IANA Stewardship
>> Transition Coordination Group process.
>
> _______________________= ________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

--089e01175e89f1e4b3050eac0936-- From nobody Mon Feb 9 12:39:30 2015 Return-Path: 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 7FFC01A1EF2 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:55:40 -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 8aYoN06l5I16 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com (mail-pd0-f175.google.com [209.85.192.175]) (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 A79921A1BDC for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by pdbfl12 with SMTP id fl12so8669126pdb.2 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:55:38 -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=4HzkXgyyOjGVIu46hHM2AYaKHD0wXsO0808kpOWaEAY=; b=fRhzMavPsJboIsX5w0hLUBjz2R4twFI8qamk7KjZ0/U9TioIhJkO7J64J15CmDuv2D B3Hvmzjq+JyYrQgkQ1vVE1u7BZnoMF/XR1/i1gab4TrDucBW4ph2lxrA+A16eAS+2oAQ UDLkCdXGVoat8M/3sAlZyxCF3yptZobkKBCtFCcphEep58TYtAuS7k8tFD9NLaqixrdt gfutJcB9PXG4IEmV6CCwCGtWZe2Z3kSMIfDOVw/J3MfVket5zm1oPeSS2zby1FLTkSKt 5gI4oOCbOVF8PLfYNB60UC4f1xY5gbUHgFbJlVYMURHeLeilfyEycmw1+bA/WKj8wtDL a37Q== X-Received: by 10.68.242.229 with SMTP id wt5mr14817308pbc.25.1423511738373; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:55:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4f88:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4f88:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kv3sm8116522pab.30.2015.02.09.11.55.35 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:55:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:55:35 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter 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: Ray Pelletier , Dave Crocker References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> In-Reply-To: <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 19:55:40 -0000 On 10/02/2015 06:41, Ray Pelletier wrote: > wfm wfm too. I trust (pun) that the Trust will do some due diligence to check that it would not be accepting any undesirable liability, although nothing comes to mind; however, it should be clear that domain name is distinct intellectual property from the content of the domain. A side note: since the beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF, the IETF's assent is presumably requuired. Brian >=20 > ray >=20 >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: >>> I=E2=80=99m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an = independent body >>> with its own processes and limits. Thus =E2=80=9CThe IETF is willing= to have the IETF >>> Trust hold=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D I find troublesome. >>> >>> IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when th= ere is=20 >>> an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. >> >> >> Ray, >> >> Thanks for the clarification. Point taken. >> >> The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the ISTCG/IETF= >> side of things usefully. >> >> >> So again, perhaps a conjunction set: >> >> 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. >> >> d/ >> >> --=20 >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >=20 From nobody Mon Feb 9 12:58:35 2015 Return-Path: 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 494E91A88A4 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 tEe-cmoADUUA for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (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 2F86F1A884E for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:14:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0078666.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t19KDUbR001246; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:14:45 -0500 Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1sesfgsdyb-2 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:14:44 -0500 Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.97]) by stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:14:41 -0500 From: "Peterson, Jon" To: Brian E Carpenter , Ray Pelletier , Dave Crocker Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Thread-Index: AQHQRC1Pr46Ntk96LEyczav+CTeNyJzod1CAgAA/EoCAAAPbgIAABKIAgAAbPYCAAAVxAIAAAYIAgAAEjYCAAARhgIAAAOCAgAAlVoD//387AA== Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:14:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [192.168.128.80] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2935888523DF2D47AA0FFE7AC9730B5A@neustar.biz> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7707 signatures=670626 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=4.7993609086916e-11 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=0 compositescore=0.993311949948012 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.993311949948012 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 rbsscore=0.993311949948012 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1502090199 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:14:54 -0000 >A side note: since the beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF, >the IETF's assent is presumably requuired. As I've been reading this thread this morning, I've kind of been wondering about the same thing. I do think we would need a more formal decision that the IETF feels it would be appropriate for the Trust to take responsibility for IANA's trademark and domains. I mean, in general, of course we should be happy to provide functions that are in keeping with our core mission of making the Internet better, and there's some historical precedent here. But a lot has changed since those historical times: clearly this function has become extremely politicized and with that comes a lot of baggage that I worry could weigh us down. The Trust exists to own some specific assets, and I'd be hesitant to alter its scope, or to make the assets it owns share fate with more contentious properties. What do we imagine the responsibility we'd be taking on here, as the Trust and the IETF, might actually look like? And are there alternatives, like forming an independent IANA Trust, that we should consider before we signal that we're open to this path? Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc. > > Brian > >>=20 >> ray >>=20 >>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: >>>> I=B9m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an >>>>independent body >>>> with its own processes and limits. Thus =B3The IETF is willing to hav= e >>>>the IETF >>>> Trust hold=8A=B2 I find troublesome. >>>> >>>> IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when >>>>there is=20 >>>> an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. >>> >>> >>> Ray, >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification. Point taken. >>> >>> The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the ISTCG/IETF >>> side of things usefully. >>> >>> >>> So again, perhaps a conjunction set: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> --=20 >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >>=20 > >_______________________________________________ >Ianaplan mailing list >Ianaplan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 9 13:09:49 2015 Return-Path: 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 AF2E51A88C0 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:21:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wrXARs_F-XKH for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0075.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F7651A88CF for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (72.237.59.193) by CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.166.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.75.20; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:21:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ray Pelletier In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:22:56 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com> To: "Peterson, Jon" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0201CA0033.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.191.171) To CO1PR06MB238.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.166.144) Authentication-Results: neustar.biz; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR06MB238; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:CO1PR06MB238; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04825EA361 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6049001)(6009001)(479174004)(377454003)(24454002)(51704005)(51914003)(87976001)(117156001)(36756003)(42186005)(46102003)(15975445007)(77096005)(93886004)(2950100001)(62966003)(77156002)(23746002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(83716003)(57306001)(33656002)(82746002)(92566002)(86362001)(50226001)(122386002)(47776003)(561944003)(50986999)(110136001)(76176999)(40100003)(66066001)(50466002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR06MB238; H:[192.168.0.13]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR06MB238; X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2015 20:21:32.6941 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR06MB238 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" , Brian CarpenterG , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:21:52 -0000 Jon, > On Feb 9, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Peterson, Jon = wrote: >=20 >> A side note: since the beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF, >> the IETF's assent is presumably requuired. >=20 > As I've been reading this thread this morning, I've kind of been = wondering > about the same thing. >=20 > I do think we would need a more formal decision that the IETF feels it > would be appropriate for the Trust to take responsibility for IANA's > trademark and domains. I mean, in general, of course we should be = happy to > provide functions that are in keeping with our core mission of making = the > Internet better, and there's some historical precedent here. But a lot = has > changed since those historical times: clearly this function has become > extremely politicized and with that comes a lot of baggage that I = worry > could weigh us down. The Trust exists to own some specific assets, and = I'd > be hesitant to alter its scope, or to make the assets it owns share = fate > with more contentious properties. >=20 > What do we imagine the responsibility we'd be taking on here, as the = Trust > and the IETF, might actually look like? And are there alternatives, = like > forming an independent IANA Trust, that we should consider before we > signal that we're open to this path? Just as a point of information. =20 This would not be a new thing for the IETF Trust. On 11 November 2009 at the IETF meeting in Hiroshima the Trustees passed = a=20 resolution accepting the transfer of the rfc-editor.org domain from the = USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI). The transfer was to accommodate the move of the RFC Editor from ISI. = ISI decided=20 not to submit a proposal in response to an RFP for the RFC Production = Center 22 May 2009. AMS was awarded the contract for the RFC Production Center by the = IAOC on=20 1 October 2009, and the use of the rfc-editor.org domain. Ray >=20 > Jon Peterson > Neustar, Inc. >=20 >>=20 >> Brian >>=20 >>>=20 >>> ray >>>=20 >>>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On 2/9/2015 9:23 AM, Ray Pelletier wrote: >>>>> I=B9m not comfortable with that wording. The IETF Trust is an >>>>> independent body >>>>> with its own processes and limits. Thus =B3The IETF is willing to = have >>>>> the IETF >>>>> Trust hold=8A=B2 I find troublesome. >>>>>=20 >>>>> IMHO the Trust cannot speculate as to what its action will be when >>>>> there is=20 >>>>> an ask from an appropriate party to hold the mark and domain. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Ray, >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks for the clarification. Point taken. >>>>=20 >>>> The corresponding concern has to do with characterizing the = ISTCG/IETF >>>> side of things usefully. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> So again, perhaps a conjunction set: >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> ThE IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate = for >>>> holding the trademark and domain. >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> d/ >>>>=20 >>>> --=20 >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ianaplan mailing list >>> Ianaplan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >=20 From nobody Mon Feb 9 13:19:52 2015 Return-Path: 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 52EED1A88C7 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:28:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 3JArmw9lU2WM for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (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 0A7D41A88DB for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0078664.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id t19KMelE014123; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:28:07 -0500 Received: from stntexhc12.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1sesb49evn-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:28:06 -0500 Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.97]) by stntexhc12.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:28:05 -0500 From: "Peterson, Jon" To: Ray Pelletier Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Thread-Index: AQHQRC1Pr46Ntk96LEyczav+CTeNyJzod1CAgAA/EoCAAAPbgIAABKIAgAAbPYCAAAVxAIAAAYIAgAAEjYCAAARhgIAAAOCAgAAlVoD//387AIAAiGkA//97UoA= Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:28:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <03A3C008-E1FD-40D6-B390-41751D782353@isoc.org> <54D8F0A9.4070602@dcrocker.net> <3B29D634-25D1-4702-95CB-80FC34028983@isoc.org> <54D910B7.7080508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [192.168.128.80] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <037B2C7AADD20440BCB5AB5CF43EFAC8@neustar.biz> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7707 signatures=670626 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=4.7993609086916e-11 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=0 compositescore=0.993311949948012 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.993311949948012 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 rbsscore=0.993311949948012 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1502090201 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" , Brian CarpenterG , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:28:33 -0000 DQpHb29kIHBvaW50IFJheS4gQW5kIHRvIGJlIGNsZWFyLCBJJ20gbm90IHVuaWxhdGVyYWxseSBv cHBvc2VkIHRvIHRoZSBzY29wZQ0Kb2YgdGhlIFRydXN0IGV2ZXIgY2hhbmdpbmcgLSBidXQgSSBk byBnYXRoZXIgdGhhdCBJQU5BJ3MgdHJhZGVtYXJrcyBhbmQNCmRvbWFpbnMgYXJlIGEgbW9yZSBw b2xpdGljYWxseSBjb250ZW50aW91cyBhc3NldCB0aGFuIHRob3NlIG9mIHRoZSBSRkMNCkVkaXRv ci4NCg0KSm9uIFBldGVyc29uDQpOZXVzdGFyLCBJbmMuDQoNCk9uIDIvOS8xNSwgMTI6MjIgUE0s ICJSYXkgUGVsbGV0aWVyIiA8cnBlbGxldGllckBpc29jLm9yZz4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj5Kb24sDQo+ DQo+DQo+PiBPbiBGZWIgOSwgMjAxNSwgYXQgMzoxNCBQTSwgUGV0ZXJzb24sIEpvbiA8am9uLnBl dGVyc29uQG5ldXN0YXIuYml6Pg0KPj53cm90ZToNCj4+IA0KPj4+IEEgc2lkZSBub3RlOiBzaW5j ZSB0aGUgYmVuZWZpY2lhcnkgb2YgdGhlIElFVEYgVHJ1c3QgaXMgdGhlIElFVEYsDQo+Pj4gdGhl IElFVEYncyBhc3NlbnQgaXMgcHJlc3VtYWJseSByZXF1dWlyZWQuDQo+PiANCj4+IEFzIEkndmUg YmVlbiByZWFkaW5nIHRoaXMgdGhyZWFkIHRoaXMgbW9ybmluZywgSSd2ZSBraW5kIG9mIGJlZW4N Cj4+d29uZGVyaW5nDQo+PiBhYm91dCB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gSSBkbyB0aGlu ayB3ZSB3b3VsZCBuZWVkIGEgbW9yZSBmb3JtYWwgZGVjaXNpb24gdGhhdCB0aGUgSUVURiBmZWVs cyBpdA0KPj4gd291bGQgYmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBUcnVzdCB0byB0YWtlIHJlc3Bv bnNpYmlsaXR5IGZvciBJQU5BJ3MNCj4+IHRyYWRlbWFyayBhbmQgZG9tYWlucy4gSSBtZWFuLCBp biBnZW5lcmFsLCBvZiBjb3Vyc2Ugd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIGhhcHB5DQo+PnRvDQo+PiBwcm92aWRl IGZ1bmN0aW9ucyB0aGF0IGFyZSBpbiBrZWVwaW5nIHdpdGggb3VyIGNvcmUgbWlzc2lvbiBvZiBt YWtpbmcNCj4+dGhlDQo+PiBJbnRlcm5ldCBiZXR0ZXIsIGFuZCB0aGVyZSdzIHNvbWUgaGlzdG9y aWNhbCBwcmVjZWRlbnQgaGVyZS4gQnV0IGEgbG90DQo+Pmhhcw0KPj4gY2hhbmdlZCBzaW5jZSB0 aG9zZSBoaXN0b3JpY2FsIHRpbWVzOiBjbGVhcmx5IHRoaXMgZnVuY3Rpb24gaGFzIGJlY29tZQ0K Pj4gZXh0cmVtZWx5IHBvbGl0aWNpemVkIGFuZCB3aXRoIHRoYXQgY29tZXMgYSBsb3Qgb2YgYmFn Z2FnZSB0aGF0IEkgd29ycnkNCj4+IGNvdWxkIHdlaWdoIHVzIGRvd24uIFRoZSBUcnVzdCBleGlz dHMgdG8gb3duIHNvbWUgc3BlY2lmaWMgYXNzZXRzLCBhbmQNCj4+SSdkDQo+PiBiZSBoZXNpdGFu dCB0byBhbHRlciBpdHMgc2NvcGUsIG9yIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlIGFzc2V0cyBpdCBvd25zIHNoYXJl IGZhdGUNCj4+IHdpdGggbW9yZSBjb250ZW50aW91cyBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBXaGF0 IGRvIHdlIGltYWdpbmUgdGhlIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IHdlJ2QgYmUgdGFraW5nIG9uIGhlcmUs IGFzIHRoZQ0KPj5UcnVzdA0KPj4gYW5kIHRoZSBJRVRGLCBtaWdodCBhY3R1YWxseSBsb29rIGxp a2U/IEFuZCBhcmUgdGhlcmUgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzLCBsaWtlDQo+PiBmb3JtaW5nIGFuIGluZGVw ZW5kZW50IElBTkEgVHJ1c3QsIHRoYXQgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGNvbnNpZGVyIGJlZm9yZSB3ZQ0KPj4g c2lnbmFsIHRoYXQgd2UncmUgb3BlbiB0byB0aGlzIHBhdGg/DQo+DQo+SnVzdCBhcyBhIHBvaW50 IG9mIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLg0KPg0KPlRoaXMgd291bGQgbm90IGJlIGEgbmV3IHRoaW5nIGZvciB0 aGUgSUVURiBUcnVzdC4NCj4NCj5PbiAxMSBOb3ZlbWJlciAyMDA5IGF0IHRoZSBJRVRGIG1lZXRp bmcgaW4gSGlyb3NoaW1hIHRoZSBUcnVzdGVlcyBwYXNzZWQNCj5hIA0KPnJlc29sdXRpb24gYWNj ZXB0aW5nIHRoZSB0cmFuc2ZlciBvZiB0aGUgcmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcgZG9tYWluIGZyb20gdGhl DQo+VVNDIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQo+U2NpZW5jZXMgSW5zdGl0dXRlIChJU0kpLg0KPg0KPlRoZSB0 cmFuc2ZlciB3YXMgdG8gYWNjb21tb2RhdGUgdGhlIG1vdmUgb2YgdGhlIFJGQyBFZGl0b3IgZnJv bSBJU0kuICBJU0kNCj5kZWNpZGVkIA0KPm5vdCB0byBzdWJtaXQgYSBwcm9wb3NhbCBpbiByZXNw b25zZSB0byBhbiBSRlAgZm9yIHRoZSBSRkMgUHJvZHVjdGlvbg0KPkNlbnRlciAyMiBNYXkNCj4y MDA5LiBBTVMgd2FzIGF3YXJkZWQgdGhlIGNvbnRyYWN0IGZvciB0aGUgUkZDIFByb2R1Y3Rpb24g Q2VudGVyIGJ5IHRoZQ0KPklBT0Mgb24gDQo+MSBPY3RvYmVyIDIwMDksIGFuZCB0aGUgdXNlIG9m IHRoZSByZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZyBkb21haW4uDQo+DQo+UmF5DQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+PiANCj4+IEpv biBQZXRlcnNvbg0KPj4gTmV1c3RhciwgSW5jLg0KPj4gDQo+Pj4gDQo+Pj4gIEJyaWFuDQo+Pj4g DQo+Pj4+IA0KPj4+PiByYXkNCj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiBPbiBGZWIgOSwgMjAxNSwgYXQgMTI6Mzgg UE0sIERhdmUgQ3JvY2tlciA8ZGhjQGRjcm9ja2VyLm5ldD4gd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+ IE9uIDIvOS8yMDE1IDk6MjMgQU0sIFJheSBQZWxsZXRpZXIgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4+Pj4gScK5bSBu b3QgY29tZm9ydGFibGUgd2l0aCB0aGF0IHdvcmRpbmcuICBUaGUgSUVURiBUcnVzdCBpcyBhbg0K Pj4+Pj4+IGluZGVwZW5kZW50IGJvZHkNCj4+Pj4+PiB3aXRoIGl0cyBvd24gcHJvY2Vzc2VzIGFu ZCBsaW1pdHMuICBUaHVzIMKzVGhlIElFVEYgaXMgd2lsbGluZyB0bw0KPj4+Pj4+aGF2ZQ0KPj4+ Pj4+IHRoZSBJRVRGDQo+Pj4+Pj4gVHJ1c3QgaG9sZMWgwrIgIEkgZmluZCB0cm91Ymxlc29tZS4N Cj4+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+PiBJTUhPIHRoZSBUcnVzdCBjYW5ub3Qgc3BlY3VsYXRlIGFzIHRvIHdo YXQgaXRzIGFjdGlvbiB3aWxsIGJlIHdoZW4NCj4+Pj4+PiB0aGVyZSBpcyANCj4+Pj4+PiBhbiBh c2sgZnJvbSBhbiBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBwYXJ0eSB0byBob2xkIHRoZSBtYXJrIGFuZCBkb21haW4u DQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+IA0KPj4+Pj4gUmF5LA0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiBUaGFua3MgZm9yIHRo ZSBjbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uLiAgUG9pbnQgdGFrZW4uDQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+IFRoZSBjb3JyZXNw b25kaW5nIGNvbmNlcm4gaGFzIHRvIGRvIHdpdGggY2hhcmFjdGVyaXppbmcgdGhlDQo+Pj4+PklT VENHL0lFVEYNCj4+Pj4+IHNpZGUgb2YgdGhpbmdzIHVzZWZ1bGx5Lg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiAN Cj4+Pj4+IFNvIGFnYWluLCBwZXJoYXBzIGEgY29uanVuY3Rpb24gc2V0Og0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+ PiAgIFdpdGggcmVnYXJkcyB0byB0aGUgSUFOQSB0cmFkZW1hcmsgYW5kIHRoZSBJQU5BLk9SRyBk b21haW4sIGJvdGgNCj4+Pj4+IGFyZSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIElBTkEgTnVtYmVyaW5n IFNlcnZpY2VzIGFuZCBub3Qgd2l0aCBhDQo+Pj4+PiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIElBTkEgTnVtYmVyaW5n IFNlcnZpY2VzIE9wZXJhdG9yLg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiAgIFRoRSBJRVRGIGNvbnNpZGVycyB0 aGUgSUVURiBUcnVzdCB0byBiZSBhbiBhY2NlcHRhYmxlIGNhbmRpZGF0ZSBmb3INCj4+Pj4+IGhv bGRpbmcgdGhlIHRyYWRlbWFyayBhbmQgZG9tYWluLg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiAgIFRoZSBJRVRG IHdvdWxkIHN1cHBvcnQgYSBkZWNpc2lvbiBieSB0aGUgSUVURiBUcnVzdCB0byBob2xkIHRoZQ0K Pj4+Pj4gSUFOQSBtYXJrLCBhbmQgaWFuYS5vcmcgZG9tYWluIGluIGJlaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgSW50 ZXJuZXQgY29tbXVuaXR5Lg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiBkLw0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiAtLSANCj4+ Pj4+IERhdmUgQ3JvY2tlcg0KPj4+Pj4gQnJhbmRlbmJ1cmcgSW50ZXJuZXRXb3JraW5nDQo+Pj4+ PiBiYml3Lm5ldA0KPj4+PiANCj4+Pj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+Pj4gSWFuYXBsYW4gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+Pj4+IElhbmFwbGFu QGlldGYub3JnDQo+Pj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaWFu YXBsYW4NCj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4gDQo+Pj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+PiBJYW5hcGxhbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+PiBJYW5hcGxhbkBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaWFuYXBs YW4NCj4+IA0KPg0KDQo= From nobody Mon Feb 9 13:31:47 2015 Return-Path: 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 7D9351A88DD for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:56:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 b2F33Z8D4uPV for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.ore.mailhop.org (smtp4.ore.mailhop.org [54.149.240.58]) (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 C473D1A8777 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 12:56:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [111.223.111.2] (helo=[192.168.9.225]) by smtp4.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YKvN8-0004jN-Sj; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:55:59 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP X-Originating-IP: 111.223.111.2 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18q/sRtfobMTbrnGfFf8x6x Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DEE8CD00-4290-4C86-8390-3DE6C5DC9358" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 04:55:57 +0800 Message-Id: <9818780A-D7EC-44AA-B838-A8E862DC9399@istaff.org> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> To: Bernard Aboba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: Ray Pelletier , "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:56:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_DEE8CD00-4290-4C86-8390-3DE6C5DC9358 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Feb 10, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Bernard Aboba = wrote: > In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a = recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain. There is the = issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA = functions are no longer handled by a single operator. Ideally the ICG = will come up with language that describes the process by which this is = decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of course, this = process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust.=20 Agreed that procedures would be necessary in that particular case, = uncertain that=20 the ICG would come up with them (my understanding of the ICG is that it = is a 'review and assembly' process for development of a single particular stewardship = transition=20 proposal and that all actual content comes from the individual = communities) The act of participating in publication of an IANA registry, regardless = of the operator, seems to imply a minimal level of coordination with other IANA registry = operators. In the (suboptimal) case of multiple IANA operators for = protocols/names/numbers, they are most certainly going to have to coordinate, since the IP address, = ASN, and root zone spaces are each ultimately single Internet identifier spaces with = individual=20 spans managed by distinct communities. Coordination is inherent to = maintaining=20 the core principal of uniqueness; necessary for successful functioning = of the IANA=20 registries and ultimately the success of IETF protocols in making the = Internet work=20 better. The IANAplan ICG RFP response (on behalf of the IETF community) states = that the=20 IETF community "will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and = other parties=20 that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation of the = Internet registries=E2=80=9D;=20 presumably this includes directing any protocol parameter IANA operator = to coordinate=20 on their use of the IANA domain and marks. The CRISP team ICG RFP response (on behalf of the Numbers community) = states=20 that its agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator "should = also require=20 the IANA Numbering Services Operator to appropriately coordinate with = any other=20 operator of IANA services.=E2=80=9D; presumably this includes directing = any protocol parameter=20 IANA operator to coordinate on their use of the IANA domain and marks. If there were to ever be multiple IANA registry operators, would the = requirement (from=20 their respective communities) for each of them coordinate with one = another be sufficient=20 to result in any necessary procedures being established? I would think = that the IETF=E2=80=99s=20 IANA operator would administer the IANA.org domain as = part of the RFC 2860 MOU=20 (per 'online publication' task 4.4) and that the IETF would want any = delegated registries to also be available at the same consistent publication point, but it = probably would be=20 worth making IETF=E2=80=99s expectations (whatever they may be) explicit = should the IANA.org =20 domain be held by the IETF Trust.=20 /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Use, abuse, or discard as desired. --Apple-Mail=_DEE8CD00-4290-4C86-8390-3DE6C5DC9358 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 On Feb 10, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
In terms of work = the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a recommendation on who = holds the trademark and domain.  There is the issue of where the = domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA functions are no longer = handled by a single operator.  Ideally the ICG will come up with = language that describes the process by which this is decided among the = IETF, RIRs and names communities.  And of course, this process = would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust. 

Agreed that procedures = would be necessary in that particular case, uncertain = that 
the ICG would come up with them (my understanding = of the ICG is that it is a 'review
and assembly' process for = development of a single particular stewardship = transition 
proposal and that all actual content comes = from the individual communities)

The act of participating in publication of an = IANA registry, regardless of the operator,
seems to imply = a minimal level of coordination with other IANA registry operators. =  In
the (suboptimal) case of multiple IANA = operators for protocols/names/numbers, they
are = most certainly going to have to coordinate, since the IP address, ASN, = and root
zone spaces are each ultimately single = Internet identifier spaces with individual 
spans managed by distinct communities.  Coordination is = inherent to maintaining 
the core principal of = uniqueness; necessary for successful functioning of the = IANA 
registries and ultimately the success of = IETF protocols in making the Internet work 
better.

The IANAplan ICG RFP response (on behalf of the IETF = community) states that the 
IETF community = "will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other = parties 
that are mutually invested in the = continued smooth operation of the Internet = registries=E2=80=9D; 
presumably this includes = directing any protocol parameter IANA operator to = coordinate 
on their use of the IANA domain = and marks.

The = CRISP team ICG RFP response (on behalf of the Numbers community) = states 
that its agreement with the IANA = Numbering Services Operator "should also require 
the IANA Numbering Services Operator to appropriately = coordinate with any other 
operator of IANA = services.=E2=80=9D; presumably this includes directing any protocol = parameter 
IANA operator to coordinate on = their use of the IANA domain and marks.

If there were to ever be multiple IANA = registry operators, would the requirement (from 
their respective communities) for each of them coordinate = with one another be sufficient 
to result in = any necessary procedures being established?  I would think that the = IETF=E2=80=99s 
IANA operator would administer = the IANA.org domain as = part of the RFC 2860 MOU 
(per 'online = publication' task 4.4) and that the IETF would want any delegated = registries
to also be available at the same = consistent publication point, but it probably would be 
worth making IETF=E2=80=99s expectations (whatever they may = be) explicit should the IANA.org 
domain be held by the = IETF Trust. 

/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone.  Use, abuse, or = discard as desired.



= --Apple-Mail=_DEE8CD00-4290-4C86-8390-3DE6C5DC9358-- From nobody Mon Feb 9 14:38:10 2015 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 In-Reply-To: <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:19:50 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Originating-IP: [203.119.101.249] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:19:59 -0000 > On 9 Feb 2015, at 10:47 pm, Andrew Sullivan = wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=20 agree that its a fine place for the trademark to land through the IETF's = trust=20 mechanism. I'd like to think that the associated zone contents are = sufficient dormant that it carries no further substantive decision process no = matter=20 where it lands, but I'm personally not as convinced of that supposition = as=20 Andrew appears to be. Geoff =20= From nobody Mon Feb 9 16:25:32 2015 Return-Path: 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 633C71A8AA0 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWhXlJu54s_t for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.syr.edu (smtp1.syr.edu [128.230.18.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7011A0372 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-13.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.144]) by smtp1.syr.edu (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 EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:25:05 -0500 Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) 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 Thread-Index: AQHQRC0IxVHZPheECUmrxB/6reEr+Zzod1GAgAA/EYCAAAPcgIAABKIAgAAbPICAAC0XUA== Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:24:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [199.91.195.78] 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-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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----- >=20 > 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.=20 The RFP submission of the numbers community lays to rest the idea that requ= esting a transfer of the mark and the domain would expose the IETF to unnam= ed 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.=20 As I noted at the time this issue was first raised, IETF would not be barga= ining with ICANN on its own; rather, ICANN would be bargaining with the NTI= A and the entire names, numbers and protocol communities to implementing a = finalized and integrated ICG proposal.=20 Bottom line for me: there would be an incompatibility in these proposals on= ly if the IETF said that it was opposed to the IETF Trust receiving the ass= ets. So I hope you don't say that. An incompatibility would require additio= nal work and "open things up" that would better be left concluded.=20 From nobody Mon Feb 9 16:26:50 2015 Return-Path: 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 DE7B11A8AAD for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:26:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56hWk4XvJXMN for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.syr.edu (smtp1.syr.edu [128.230.18.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EAC61A8AA0 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from EX13-MBX-12.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-12.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.143]) by smtp1.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t1A0QRSC009954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:26:27 -0500 Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-12.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:26:20 -0500 Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:26:01 -0500 From: Milton L Mueller To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" , "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Thread-Index: AQHQRC0IxVHZPheECUmrxB/6reEr+Zzod1GAgAA/EYCAAAPcgIAABKIAgAAbPICAAAVyAIAAAYIAgAAm6rA= Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:26:01 +0000 Message-ID: <82d01c31c6f64af29c90d9d71090925e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [199.91.195.78] 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-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 00:26:36 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > 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, if the associated policies and procedures are > acceptable to the IETF Trust. >=20 Um. Don't forget the trademark.=20 From nobody Mon Feb 9 17:12:27 2015 Return-Path: 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 50B231A8AC1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 iibzr7fc6euR for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (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 339D01A8982 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v8so24014053qal.7 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:12:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OcTWYqnpL7iubbm4fiaZMIJkfP5Of7dXSZ0yxtylpaQ=; b=of46Zh5O1JhSJkmYeXiODZ0RwsfJ2ryBnomEeSPXjuCZ0KGAznYLibDBXBxZVmVBNe XIolD3oiwtDvrsF70roOjstswech1mD0SFWBuT4ID31Jjo7njP81UD7bzQcuInQmJL7p Ip5YeMnSLE8eT0Ycrfnfyod2iknXcHCR+zq6nXdE2MeqOdDkQvnlHe/A3OY84TOM92fu lK8VgPkaKig4taJHW4ckRl48FSE5giu+/jBGoKJwW7hF47OfOKysfxUfcKhu5xlTlYoY QdNK4tLt+9FNuI7r3dQL6DA0yOXWgP2SgJQB5UDlL1FftESFIC+zyCoO5C+3J97aEO4J 27Ww== X-Received: by 10.229.216.130 with SMTP id hi2mr1775039qcb.4.1423530729265; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:12:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.148.194 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 17:11:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:11:39 +0800 Message-ID: To: Milton L Mueller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c34271de1e050eb19360 Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" , Eric Burger Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 01:12:13 -0000 --001a1134c34271de1e050eb19360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----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. > > > 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. > I don't think anyone should feel threatened by Milton's statement above ;-). Even if IETF disagree, it also mean that the RIR needs to re-look/re-think their decision on this subject matter. My personal view during the RIR consultation was that the domain and trademark transfer is not necessarily required at this time especially as it will have less/no impact to the RIR than to the IETF, but the RIR adopted the view of the majority which is fine. Perhaps its worth noting that Richard Hill was one of the supporters of the transfer and hopefully the ICG will put that in perspective of recent comments to ICG about the RIR proposal from Richard. Regards > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! --001a1134c34271de1e050eb19360 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
>
> I like this language. It captures our willingness to have the IETF Tru= st hold the
> registration while also capturing our disinterest in fighting for it.<= br> > >
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The IETF is willing to= have the IETF Trust hold registration of
> > IANA.ORG, if th= at is the preference produced from the IANA Stewardship
> > Transition Coordination Group process.


Bottom line for me: there would be an incompatibility in these proposals on= ly if the IETF said that it was opposed to the IETF Trust receiving the ass= ets. So I hope you don't say that. An incompatibility would require add= itional work and "open things up" that would better be left concl= uded.

I don't think anyone should f= eel threatened by Milton's statement above ;-). Even if IETF disagree, = it also mean that the RIR needs to re-look/re-think their decision on this = subject matter. My personal view during the RIR consultation was that the d= omain and trademark transfer is not necessarily required at this time espec= ially as it will have less/no impact to the RIR than to the IETF, but the R= IR adopted the view of the majority which is fine.

Perhaps its wort= h noting that Richard Hill was one of the supporters of the transfer and ho= pefully the ICG will put that in perspective of recent comments to ICG abou= t the RIR proposal from Richard.

Regards

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan



--
-------------------------------------= -----------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-E= kiti
web:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoy= e.edu.ng

The key to under= standing is humility - my view !

--001a1134c34271de1e050eb19360-- From nobody Mon Feb 9 20:25:57 2015 Return-Path: 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 D77951A8AFB for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 97utT8GkLFkd for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:25:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209E71A8BB1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404B820E78 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:25:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=mesmtp; bh=Wo5XVx01U32h/MM5 haAY+B1NlQE=; b=BqW5ASCCxzazz5jkHWk7H+tKdAOJJzapxWM5b3AP0+T2NoE1 Gs/1PhFcHk+XhOhAjbSbdqFAynNgb/LitywnVIIleCgzIhXV32JFGDfjhENnfhjS 7kOf8HdBEGvpsP14Dfsjk0zoSfmtRjPwjejnIEwzETdCsVFwi1F2um7IGxg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s= smtpout; bh=Wo5XVx01U32h/MM5haAY+B1NlQE=; b=ZfW/jbMxuNVNhhNX4Rcp R0HfeSBJMztMu5qRUOqh5qmd283c3rf4texFO/ghFz9zAmcbMG1MP7q1N+fiR1Mf /G+MMLkfx+jv7Lqq9y3IBAOmURfqYCnt7WA5HwOLFteRn0F9/5LHwRvEiCfckB9w 2+MNZr/kSwKo6QKgVbxKnms= X-Sasl-enc: oCJWmPv3Ji0onVZPL0BeCGzieh8lNcdIkgVe7RCBy6HY 1423542332 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8817.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F355AC002A4; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:25:31 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7C89CCB7-48ED-4B18-A97E-9E3EA37FBF8A" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:25:31 -0800 Message-Id: <054025DB-3E54-4A9D-BDD5-8C5B58E265CF@cooperw.in> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> To: Bernard Aboba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Ray Pelletier , "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 04:25:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7C89CCB7-48ED-4B18-A97E-9E3EA37FBF8A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Bernard, On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba = wrote: > I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed.=20 >=20 > In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a = recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain. There is the = issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA = functions are no longer handled by a single operator. Ideally the ICG = will come up with language that describes the process by which this is = decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of course, this = process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust.=20 The tasks you describe above are not within the remit of the ICG. It is = up to the communities to first decide if they think they need to specify = any process related to multiple operators in advance, if that = specification needs to be related to the NTIA transition, and to then do = the specifying. And of course, even before any of those things happen, = the communities need to decide that they want the Trust to hold the = trademark and domain. With my individual IETF participant hat on, I don=92t see specification = of that sort of process as necessary, and potentially not even possible. = First of all, both communities have been quite explicit that they are = satisfied with ICANN=92s performance of the functions and have no = intention of finding new operators in the near future. Sometimes = over-specifying a contingency plan too far in advance can make dealing = with the contingency harder rather than easier. Unlike actually = transferring the trademark and domain, which could be considered = sensitive in timing with the NTIA transition, specifying that sort of = process is not. Second, the notion of specifying a process in advance implies that = having multiple operators would necessarily have some impact on where = the domain points, or other issues that somehow need to get worked out = among all of the communities and the Trust, when the identities of = potential future operators are not even known. This would take a lot of = reasonable options off the table =97 e.g., making no changes to the = operation of the domain and just having the operators coordinate to all = get their registries published on iana.org, or each community = stipulating some conditions with its operator that requires it to = cooperate with the other operators, etc. It seems like those sorts of = things would be much better to specify concretely when the time comes = than to try to do abstractly in advance. Alissa >=20 > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier = wrote: >=20 > > On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger = wrote: > > > > 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. >=20 > Can=92t we agree on these two bits: >=20 > 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. >=20 > The IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the = trademark and domain. >=20 > Ray > no hats >=20 > > > >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> > >> > >> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this translates = to: > >> > >> 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ianaplan mailing list > > Ianaplan@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_7C89CCB7-48ED-4B18-A97E-9E3EA37FBF8A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Hi Bernard,

On Feb 9, 2015, = at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> = wrote:

I'm fine with the language Ray has = proposed. 

In terms of work the ICG needs to do, = there is more than just a recommendation on who holds the trademark and = domain.  There is the issue of where the domain is pointed to, in = the event that the IANA functions are no longer handled by a single = operator.  Ideally the ICG will come up with language that = describes the process by which this is decided among the IETF, RIRs and = names communities.  And of course, this process would need to be = agreed to by the IETF = trust. 

The tasks you = describe above are not within the remit of the ICG. It is up to the = communities to first decide if they think they need to specify any = process related to multiple operators in advance, if that specification = needs to be related to the NTIA transition, and to then do the = specifying. And of course, even before any of those things happen, the = communities need to decide that they want the Trust to hold the = trademark and domain.

With my individual IETF = participant hat on, I don=92t see specification of that sort of process = as necessary, and potentially not even possible. First of all, both = communities have been quite explicit that they are satisfied with = ICANN=92s performance of the functions and have no intention of finding = new operators in the near future. Sometimes over-specifying a = contingency plan too far in advance can make dealing with the = contingency harder rather than easier. Unlike actually transferring the = trademark and domain, which could be considered sensitive in timing with = the NTIA transition, specifying that sort of process is = not.

Second, the notion of specifying a process = in advance implies that having multiple operators would necessarily have = some impact on where the domain points, or other issues that somehow = need to get worked out among all of the communities and the Trust, when = the identities of potential future operators are not even known. This = would take a lot of reasonable options off the table =97 e.g., making no = changes to the operation of the domain and just having the operators = coordinate to all get their registries published on iana.org, or each community stipulating = some conditions with its operator that requires it to cooperate with the = other operators, etc. It seems like those sorts of things would be much = better to specify concretely when the time comes than to try to do = abstractly in = advance.

Alissa


On= Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> = wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com&= gt; wrote:
>
> 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.

Can=92t we agree on these two bits:

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 Trust would be an acceptable candidate for holding the = trademark and domain.

Ray
no hats

>
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In terms of making a discrete statement, perhaps this = translates to:
>>
>>    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.
>
> = _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing = list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

= --Apple-Mail=_7C89CCB7-48ED-4B18-A97E-9E3EA37FBF8A-- From nobody Tue Feb 10 05:33:41 2015 Return-Path: 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 11AB01A0195 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:33:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.018 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 26pj-wM_gxca for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEF71A011B for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993BECC08C for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:33:37 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0yEVbSGmcK6T for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from new-host-2.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E840CCC086 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:33:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:33:35 -0500 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <054025DB-3E54-4A9D-BDD5-8C5B58E265CF@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <054025DB-3E54-4A9D-BDD5-8C5B58E265CF@cooperw.in> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 13:33:40 -0000 Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi Bernard, > > On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba > wrote: > >> I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed. >> >> In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a >> recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain. There is the >> issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA >> functions are no longer handled by a single operator. Ideally the >> ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which >> this is decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of >> course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust. > Why is this such a big deal? We're talking about A web server, with redirects for different portions of the site, to the various organizations that the IANA functions have been divied up to. One big theme, when discussing why the IETF should not care about the domain was that there were technical workarounds - i.e., using a different domain name for the IETF portion of the IANA functions. THAT would be a right royal pain. This is a case where a simple, technical fix, works just fine. How about some simple language, along the lines of: "The IETF Trust will provide a web server that contains one informational home page, and redirects all other traffic to sites maintained by the organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions. The IETF Trust will license the use of appropriate trademarks to organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions." Done. Miles Fidelman Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nobody Tue Feb 10 09:15:53 2015 Return-Path: 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 D9BDA1A1AE5; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 3oL1eJUjs0PW; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 08C471A90B1; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:14:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 249.174.199.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.199.174.249]:8969 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YLEO7-0006CQ-17; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:14:15 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:46 +0100 To: Miles Fidelman , "Alissa Cooper" From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <054025DB-3E54-4A9D-BDD5-8C5B58E265CF@cooperw.in> <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" , gene@iuwg.net, "iucg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 17:15:40 -0000 At 14:33 10/02/2015, Miles Fidelman wrote: >Why is this such a big deal? We're talking about A web server, >with redirects for different portions of the site, to the various >organizations that the IANA functions have been divied up to. > >One big theme, when discussing why the IETF should not care about >the domain was that there were technical workarounds - i.e., using a >different domain name for the IETF portion of the IANA functions. >THAT would be a right royal pain. This is a case where a simple, >technical fix, works just fine. > >How about some simple language, along the lines of: > >"The IETF Trust will provide a web server that contains one >informational home page, and redirects all other traffic to sites >maintained by the organizations currently delegated the various IANA >functions. The IETF Trust will license the use of appropriate >trademarks to organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions." > >Done. > >Miles Fidelman FYI, since no one has considered that our project created any difficulty to any of the participating stakeholders, along Miles lines and to be sure there is no further confusion, the CatenetCC (http://catenet.coop) project has registered openref(s).net and freeref(s).net for its FLOSS extension of the IANA in support of the CLASS "FL". A Draft for information on the Catenet intertest-bed will be introduced once the project has stabilized and my appeal irt. the I_D of this WG will have been addressed by the IESG/IAB/ISOC. This appeal will be introduced once the current details being discussed which may affect the http://iana.arpa domain and site are clarified. jfc From nobody Tue Feb 10 11:34:40 2015 Return-Path: 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 899721A1B77 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ocsr13xnLh2x for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (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 36E821A1B6E for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id eu11so21576228pac.10 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:34 -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=uN4YssDfFTkmrO27FGqxD6rPPpY+JOt1Q/kAaOWjJ6g=; b=SU4UA2sJQu1rGggqbqf5cF7iTRqRVKH5PXZGsbv70hWgbVcpgifbg9i2stK6T0P3Jk a5UXd3AUcZc3RQgFhrpnP2wjpfY7AtY6ZW7ll623dIxyHYhhoSgZc/xoU4YX99E+5WcQ /GzI0+Uqgiuo7aHpqLAC/4Hmu+2+4uibt47NCR1F0zTgN/vhu6zteAlgbX1xqRZ3JYj+ fqyuN/BAGg3QM8TmEydkHLG71n973h3+RHryMF4c49yBcQmRknm9je0XNZdR9hTUetxo DxOu3C6OWru+SgQuUX9H6Q81sQzJh3tNTQtPdWn9wm6V2mHbwkbAK6dg0katnn5XZllP 27KA== X-Received: by 10.70.90.39 with SMTP id bt7mr39479544pdb.52.1423596874503; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6492:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6492:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hh2sm20287655pac.32.2015.02.10.11.34.31 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:34:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54DA5D4A.8080402@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:34:34 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter 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: Miles Fidelman References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <054025DB-3E54-4A9D-BDD5-8C5B58E265CF@cooperw.in> <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> In-Reply-To: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 19:34:36 -0000 Miles, On 11/02/2015 02:33, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Hi Bernard, >> >> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Bernard Aboba > wrote: >> >>> I'm fine with the language Ray has proposed. >>> >>> In terms of work the ICG needs to do, there is more than just a recommendation on who holds the trademark and domain. There >>> is the issue of where the domain is pointed to, in the event that the IANA functions are no longer handled by a single >>> operator. Ideally the ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which this is decided among the IETF, >>> RIRs and names communities. And of course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust. >> > > Why is this such a big deal? We're talking about A web server, with redirects for different portions of the site, to the > various organizations that the IANA functions have been divied up to. > > One big theme, when discussing why the IETF should not care about the domain was that there were technical workarounds - i.e., > using a different domain name for the IETF portion of the IANA functions. THAT would be a right royal pain. This is a case > where a simple, technical fix, works just fine. > > How about some simple language, along the lines of: > > "The IETF Trust will provide a web server No it won't. Its job is to hold IPR for the benefit of the IETF, period. (Speaking as one of the original Trustees, BTW.) > that contains one informational home page, and redirects all other traffic to sites > maintained by the organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions. > The IETF Trust will license the use of > appropriate trademarks to organizations currently delegated the various IANA functions." That it could do, as well as delegating the right to use the domain name to a suitable operator. Brian From nobody Tue Feb 10 17:59:21 2015 Return-Path: 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 608791A1B8F for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 InhGZQHoacmi for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2BF71A1B8D for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 36194 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2015 01:59:16 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2015 01:59:16 -0000 Date: 11 Feb 2015 01:58:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20150211015854.4032.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: mfidelman@meetinghouse.net Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:59:19 -0000 >>> functions are no longer handled by a single operator. Ideally the >>> ICG will come up with language that describes the process by which >>> this is decided among the IETF, RIRs and names communities. And of >>> course, this process would need to be agreed to by the IETF trust. I really don't think it's a good idea to try to solve a problem that does not yet exist, quite possibly will never exist, and if it does exist, will doubtless have aspects that haven't yet occurred to us. (E.g., the gTLD people are still friends with ICANN, the ccTLD and numbers people aren't, and we parameter weenies are caught in the middle.) If it would make CRISP happy, we can say that the IETF trust will accept the IANA domain name and trademark under mutually acceptable terms to be negotiated when an if a transfer becomes necessary. But don't try to guess the details of what would be going on then. R's, John From nobody Tue Feb 10 18:53:02 2015 Return-Path: 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 A28731A6F11 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:53:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DLIgpbaLSvOa for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60D321A6F30 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:52:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-03.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.133]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t1B2quLu024481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:52:57 -0500 Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-03.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:52:20 -0500 Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:52:01 -0500 From: Milton L Mueller To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG Thread-Index: AQHQRC0IxVHZPheECUmrxB/6reEr+Zzod1GAgAA/EYCAAAPcgIAABKIAgAAbPICAAAVyAIAAGkKAgACk3YCAAJkhgIAA0D0A//+6WHA= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:52:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54DA08AF.9000508@meetinghouse.net> <20150211015854.4032.qmail@ary.lan> In-Reply-To: <20150211015854.4032.qmail@ary.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [199.91.193.37] 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=2015-02-11_01:2015-02-10,2015-02-11,1970-01-01 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-1502110027 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:53:00 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > If it would make CRISP happy, we can say that the IETF trust will accept = the > IANA domain name and trademark under mutually acceptable terms to be > negotiated when an if a transfer becomes necessary. But don't try to gue= ss > the details of what would be going on then. This is precisely the time you do NOT want to discuss the terms and conditi= ons of a trademark or domain transfer. That needs to be taken care of in ad= vance of any conflict or transfer. You don't need to "guess the details of = what would be going on" during a transfer to place the asset in hands (e.g.= , IETF trust) that are independent of any IANA functions contractor.=20 From nobody Tue Feb 10 22:16:51 2015 Return-Path: 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 4B8B11A7113 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:16:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SZCYsdaRVwra for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B271A710D for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 22:16:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1982F9A400D for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:16:38 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEiTnEYVSPm7 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:16:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.196.207.51] (30-193.icannmeeting.org [199.91.193.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900A29A4009 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:16:16 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <82d01c31c6f64af29c90d9d71090925e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:16:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com> References: <01870CB5-34E3-450A-910E-5A18D600B27B@piuha.net> <54D8C55F.9070007@dcrocker.net> <20150209144754.GA5582@mx1.yitter.info> <54D8CC7E.7030100@dcrocker.net> <54D8E92C.8020706@dcrocker.net> <82d01c31c6f64af29c90d9d71090925e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> To: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:16:50 -0000 Milton: >> 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, if the associated policies and procedures = are >> acceptable to the IETF Trust. >=20 > Um. Don't forget the trademark.=20 I have been thinking about this, and I want to share two points. (1) Whoever hold the IANA Trademark needs to provide explicit permission = for it to be used by all parties that have a role with the IABA = registries, be it oversight, policy development, or operations. (2) The IETF Trust is a fine home for the trademark, but any place that = provide (1) is okay. Russ From nobody Wed Feb 11 02:08:49 2015 Return-Path: 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 151BB1A87A2 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 IwcN6VKNa1wP for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA141A8774 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 16082 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2015 10:08:44 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2015 10:08:44 -0000 Date: 11 Feb 2015 10:08:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:08:47 -0000 >(1) Whoever hold the IANA Trademark needs to provide explicit permission >for it to be used by all parties that have a role with the IABA >registries, be it oversight, policy development, or operations. That would be nice. On the other hand, were the dung to hit the impeller and we had to call our part of IANA the IETF Protocol Parameter Registry at ietfppr.org, how much of a practical problem would that really be? The handful of programs that scrape data from it automatically would have to be updated, and the people who look stuff up by hand would have a one time surprise where they go to iana.org, find that it's changed, do some googlage on "what happened to the iana protocol registry" and update their bookmark. The parameter registry data are clearly important, but I don't see why we need to place a great emphasis on the IANA name. I understand its historical and sentimental importance, but not its practical importance. R's, John From nobody Wed Feb 11 02:16:02 2015 Return-Path: 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 65E901A87BF for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 V-sWa6IYOe46 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C4B1A87B1 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [101.100.166.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1BDA8A031 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:15:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:15:49 +0800 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ianaplan@ietf.org Message-ID: <20150211101548.GB6306@mx1.yitter.info> References: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com> <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:16:00 -0000 On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:08:21AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > The parameter registry data are clearly important, but I don't see why > we need to place a great emphasis on the IANA name. I understand its > historical and sentimental importance, but not its practical > importance. I agree with what you're saying from the POV of the IETF, but the RIRs seem to think that the name "IANA" is important to them. So, I see no problem in putting it in the Trust, even though I don't think it will ever do us any good for all the reasons you stated. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Thu Feb 12 02:58:41 2015 Return-Path: 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 D8E181A8792 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:58:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 znyNBGGVxlja for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 8F1781A8706 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from 109.216.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.216.109]:22593 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YLrTh-0007Qu-LN; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:58:38 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:58:32 +0100 To: ianaplan@ietf.org From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <20150211101548.GB6306@mx1.yitter.info> References: <2CC076A5-50D5-4A89-AA5B-F0FF7346CE82@vigilsec.com> <20150211100821.4475.qmail@ary.lan> <20150211101548.GB6306@mx1.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: Alissa Cooper , John Curran , Russ Housley Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:58:41 -0000 At 11:15 11/02/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I agree with what you're saying from the POV of the IETF, but the >RIRs seem to think that the name "IANA" is important to them. The internet was to be "a model and a set of rules which will allow data networks of widely varying internal operation to be interconnected, permitting users to access remote resources and to permit intercomputer communication across the connected networks" (http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt). Today this model has become the Internet architecture and the set of rules the "standards where the economics of global markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of standards regardless of their formal status. [] They are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant; provide global interoperability, scalability, stability, and resiliency; enable global competition; serve as building blocks for further innovation; and contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity". https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6852 The "permissionless innovation" leads to an open extension of the "data network" definition from physical to virtual where "widely internal operations", aside from the IETF set of rules, are emerging. These are the communities' networks of the network of networks. In a nutshell, a governance by coopetition among existing/investigated global community markets. This coopetition is not well accepted in here and at the NTIA, making it an Olds and Moderns competition. The RIRs are to chose their side. The USIETF protocol set, the Catenet shared infra/substructure, the IANA possible common consistency? Up to you to decide. jfc From nobody Mon Feb 16 08:05:01 2015 Return-Path: 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 84AA71A88D0 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:04:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 sK8Dg81nH3FC for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from zoidberg.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BA5E1A88E8 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:03:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from aran.int.lexiconix.com (pool-108-44-246-138.clppva.fios.verizon.net [108.44.246.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zoidberg.ecotroph.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0518EA064D; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:03:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:03:53 -0500 From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet Subject: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:04:58 -0000 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. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Feb 16 08:46:52 2015 Return-Path: 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 881341A1B5C for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 W9kND-kK35Zm for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44ED31A1B4B for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.20.140] ([216.127.117.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1GGkjLL015702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:48 -0800 Message-ID: <54E21EF3.20403@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:43 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking 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)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:48 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:46:50 -0000 On 2/16/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: > > We would like to determine if there is consensus on the following > points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015: +1 (duh) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Feb 16 08:53:03 2015 Return-Path: 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 16F951A1B61 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 ri00aW90Qcdp for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 018021A1B54 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 194.217.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.217.194]:33930 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YNOup-0005s7-GP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:52:59 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:52:49 +0100 To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:53:02 -0000 At 17:03 16/02/2015, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: >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. OK. > The IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate > for holding the trademark and domain. Due to the post-RFC 6852 implicit fork, this seems consistent with the WG/IANAPLAN consensus (I abstain). > 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. This wording should be corrected as "in behalf of the IETF community" (or this part to be removed) for multiple reasons including that: * the IETF Trust is only concerned by IETF rights * ICANN (or its successor) and its possible allies belong to the Internet community. In case of disagreement with the current operator (this is the case we consider) this wording would mean that the current operator is actually a legitimate co-owner of the domain name, jfc From nobody Mon Feb 16 08:55:04 2015 Return-Path: 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 E8A541A1B7D for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:54:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 NQEXIPkjfaHs for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A43F1A00F3 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::ce] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::ce]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 389F51A07BE; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:54:22 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:54:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet , "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:55:00 -0000 > On 16 Feb 2015, at 17:03, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) = wrote: >=20 >=20 > All, >=20 > There seems to be general agreement that there is not an = incompatibility between the RIR proposal requirement and the IETF's = proposal. >=20 > We would like to determine if there is consensus on the following = points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015: >=20 > 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. >=20 > The IETF considers the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate for > holding the trademark and domain. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 >=20 > If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 = UTC on February 19, 2015. This seems extremely reasonable. +1. Cheers, Brian > Leslie/Marc. >=20 > --=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Leslie Daigle > Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises > ldaigle@thinkingcat.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 16 09:36:28 2015 Return-Path: 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 9DEBD1A1F02 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:36:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.663 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Ktf8V8eSew87 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AA461A1DBC for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 57828 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2015 17:36:17 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2015 17:36:17 -0000 Date: 16 Feb 2015 17:35:55 -0000 Message-ID: <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> From: "John Levine" To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:36:19 -0000 >If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 UTC >on February 19, 2015. Looks OK to me. R's, John From nobody Mon Feb 16 09:43:45 2015 Return-Path: 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 F04B41A6F15 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 14nNGbeZMifi for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) (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 92EC21A6FF1 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w62so30460707wes.9 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=/Ka9z2UqWDxHdzEKEd0VrkHa6VFVTrVdzNXWirlmVHM=; b=0Rz1wUjNR4bU3W1LnnkP8X+2pryekvERdTpWNj9vugyZ+Rjuz69G54N8Z0dt39in1z SLqublXKZdbGvbEQDfkIn2CLt6DwZ+6QVUxQDROyZCt653ub/afPtNEdeqFogdvpy+5m 1RX1hTiUWDDnLiiDeSyUI5IV8RUMaP4w/jECSO27BEkY1qxuEjJZNkp2/VLhy7Fgc/7R iJPrcqhB1WIbMqrzEqbSlwEmUwG14BOr6vR2vpATc/zPYRA1Ae4yIXQSN8OA0aLb4yGX DNYgwtOkBmT8eZglYL6jJo+s0Jl7tQjfDwy8mHDh6KG7L6VFWZmTcOPlPPVyl8qLZVR2 JKyQ== X-Received: by 10.194.134.68 with SMTP id pi4mr52801196wjb.101.1424108615245; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> From: Bernard Aboba Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:15 -0800 Message-ID: To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01175e8922284a050f3820e9 Archived-At: Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:43:44 -0000 --089e01175e8922284a050f3820e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And to me as well. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John Levine wrote: > >If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 UTC > >on February 19, 2015. > > Looks OK to me. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > --089e01175e8922284a050f3820e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And to me as well.=C2=A0
<= br>
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John Levine = <= johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>If there are objections to these points, please let us kn= ow by 00h00 UTC
>on February 19, 2015.

Looks OK to me.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

--089e01175e8922284a050f3820e9-- From nobody Mon Feb 16 09:54:07 2015 Return-Path: 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 45A661A7001 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:54:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8r5YE0fN3wv2 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 011BD1A1BBC for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC66BECC; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:53:42 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M36GhgmTHE8a; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:53:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [172.16.20.132] (unknown [216.127.117.38]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 74B87BEF1; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:53:40 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54E22EA3.1080408@cs.tcd.ie> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:53:39 +0000 From: Stephen Farrell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba , John Levine References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:54:06 -0000 Ditto S On 16/02/15 17:43, Bernard Aboba wrote: > And to me as well. > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John Levine wrote: > >>> If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 UTC >>> on February 19, 2015. >> >> Looks OK to me. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > From nobody Mon Feb 16 10:00:21 2015 Return-Path: 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 57AAF1A6FFD for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:00:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 2ANLr1y_D13A for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 335441A6EDB for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YNPxk-000IAh-32; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:00:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:59:59 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Stephen Farrell , Bernard Aboba , John Levine Message-ID: <525BCC81BDE2E3F3853E4EB4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <54E22EA3.1080408@cs.tcd.ie> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> <54E22EA3.1080408@cs.tcd.ie> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:00:20 -0000 I think the question was whether anyone disagreed, but, in the event that more affirmative comments are wanted or needed, I agree as well. john --On Monday, February 16, 2015 17:53 +0000 Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Ditto > S > > On 16/02/15 17:43, Bernard Aboba wrote: >> And to me as well. >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John Levine >> wrote: >> >>>> If there are objections to these points, please let us know >>>> by 00h00 UTC on February 19, 2015. >>> >>> Looks OK to me. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ianaplan mailing list >>> Ianaplan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Mon Feb 16 11:36:43 2015 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:36:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by padfb1 with SMTP id fb1so544780pad.8 for ; 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 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)" , "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: Cc: Marc Blanchet 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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. > From nobody Mon Feb 16 20:17:16 2015 Return-Path: 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 8991E1A8726 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:17:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 LSXapX406dTP for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEF31A8716 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:17:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8675032E4F7; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 2dfe_2772_8d6db5cf_f210_4077_a55c_3296a33e040c; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:27 +0900 Received: from [133.2.210.64] (unknown [133.2.210.64]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE9CBF4DA; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:27 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <54E2C09A.5090406@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:26 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E21EF3.20403@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <54E21EF3.20403@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:17:15 -0000 +1, too. Regards, Martin. On 2015/02/17 01:46, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/16/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: >> >> We would like to determine if there is consensus on the following >> points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015: > > > +1 (duh) > > d/ > From nobody Tue Feb 17 03:32:33 2015 Return-Path: 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 C500C1A8783 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:32:32 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char C3 hex): To: "Martin J. D\303\274rst" ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 6DAF31A8799 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from 194.217.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.217.194]:42269 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YNgOC-0001wN-M3; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:32:29 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:32:16 +0100 To: "Martin J. Dürst" ,dcrocker@bbiw.net, "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <54E2C09A.5090406@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E21EF3.20403@dcrocker.net> <54E2C09A.5090406@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:32:32 -0000 At 05:16 17/02/2015, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >+1, too. Regards, Martin. I come back on my point. The change is totally useless if the IETF Trust is involved in behalf of the Internet community. 1) see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/on_behalf_of. 2) what is the legal definition of the "internet community" Consult an international lawyer. jfc >On 2015/02/17 01:46, Dave Crocker wrote: >>On 2/16/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: >>> >>>We would like to determine if there is consensus on the following >>>points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015: >> >> >>+1 (duh) >> >>d/ > >_______________________________________________ >Ianaplan mailing list >Ianaplan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Tue Feb 17 15:20:10 2015 Return-Path: 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 1554A1A90ED for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 1-8HXe977_kC for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43FAA1A90EF for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B213A20A99 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:date:references:to :message-id:mime-version; s=mesmtp; bh=u7rvPa/ov7IC+pseo5F/YhrzO yo=; b=TDvqnqCFXG+hMloaRTr+43r8i7tZbkox0gHCRamEHusFt4fYgYzsn43nn 8CuiTpoik79rWeEqypiDiXdJXESMZ0olTn8T0Y/sOYEy13XS0GUwXpnnea/stm3B B5Fp1elQk6F3qjsXcTPGdVNhZrgPmHLZxnbndTmslnDFQo14F8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:from:content-type:subject:date :references:to:message-id:mime-version; s=smtpout; bh=u7rvPa/ov7 IC+pseo5F/YhrzOyo=; b=ohQFnVXTkJqbCTUkGFBqqDgOTd/XQnjssx6/jXvPSW mTvResNDpLUWZPL6bIWXnWZgkZlErf2Oclvklpuot3l5Nsm75czxMfvLvPyY9d4i v/Ntw8i72PEgQHd3FoKwBFXLL0DZfLgq98RhQWEULSLZEGMmHBqzsgMeFGx1keYA s= X-Sasl-enc: jVeZ6JhOpodszQqzsxNVztefWjZ5EpZBKLApv930H6Wn 1424215204 Received: from dhcp-171-68-20-203.cisco.com (unknown [171.68.20.203]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 23F52680176 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:20:03 -0500 (EST) From: Alissa Cooper Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F1E224EF-3D6F-4D84-A8DE-F12D562358A1" Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:20:02 -0800 References: <54E28696.6080000@nic.ad.jp> To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Subject: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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, 17 Feb 2015 23:20:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F1E224EF-3D6F-4D84-A8DE-F12D562358A1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 FYI re the numbers community discussion on this topic.=20 Personally I think there are some useful points in there that seem = likely true from the IETF side as well =97 that the two proposals are = not incompatible, and that the IETF Trust is not the only option. Alissa Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG > Date: February 16, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM PST > To: Richard Hill , ianaxfer@nro.net >=20 > ... >=20 > Dear Colleagues, >=20 > While this is still being confirmed with the CRISP Team, below is the > latest summary of the intention of the number resources community I > observe at this stage: >=20 > * It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the mark > and the name be transferred to an entity independent of the > IANA Numbering Services Operator. >=20 > * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable > option, given this is supported by the IETF community, and the IETF > Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only option and open > to consider an option which works for the IETF community. >=20 > (I am only mentioning the IETF as this is the community where the > inconsistency was pointed out by the ICG at this point. This may > change once the names have submitted the proposal) >=20 > * The holder of the mark and domain are expected to keep a condition, > that IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use of > IANA Numbering Services, in case we change the IANA operator in the > future. >=20 > Given the numbers proposal does not set a must condition to transfer = the > mark and domain to the IETF Trust nor any other specific entity, and = the > IETF proposal does not say it will oppose to consider transfer of the > mark and domain to the IETF Trust, we do not observe any = inconsistencies. >=20 >=20 > Please share your feedback before 18th Feb if you have any other > comments to the above summary. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > Izumi >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer@nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer --Apple-Mail=_F1E224EF-3D6F-4D84-A8DE-F12D562358A1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 FYI re = the numbers community discussion on this = topic. 

Personally I think there are some useful = points in there that seem likely true from the IETF side as well =97 = that the two proposals are not incompatible, and that the IETF Trust is = not the only = option.

Alissa

Begin forwarded = message:

From: = Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from = the ICG
Date: = February 16, 2015 at = 4:08:54 PM PST
To: = Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, ianaxfer@nro.net

=
...

Dear Colleagues,

While this is still being = confirmed with the CRISP Team, below is the
latest summary of the = intention of the number resources community I
observe at this = stage:

* It is the preference of the Internet Number Community = that the mark
  and the name be transferred to an entity = independent of the
  IANA Numbering Services = Operator.

* The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an = acceptable
  option, given this is supported by the IETF = community, and the IETF
  Trust is willing to accept it. = This is not the only option and open
  to consider an = option which works for the IETF community.

  (I am = only mentioning the IETF as this is the community where the
=    inconsistency was pointed out by the ICG at this = point. This may
   change once the names have = submitted the proposal)

* The holder of the mark and domain are = expected to keep a condition,
  that IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use = of
  IANA Numbering Services, in case we change the IANA = operator in the
  future.

Given the numbers = proposal does not set a must condition to transfer the
mark and = domain to the IETF Trust nor any other specific entity, and the
IETF = proposal does not say it will oppose to consider transfer of the
mark = and domain to the IETF Trust, we do not observe any = inconsistencies.


Please share your feedback before 18th Feb = if you have any other
comments to the above = summary.


Regards,
Izumi

_____________________________= __________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer@nro.net
https://www.nro.n= et/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

= = --Apple-Mail=_F1E224EF-3D6F-4D84-A8DE-F12D562358A1-- From nobody Tue Feb 17 23:42:45 2015 Return-Path: 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 4F4251A9105 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:42:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 TclmEj4Ew6cs for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C3B1A911A for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4761C2CC5D for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:42:40 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDg1iHzZNNt9 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:42:39 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0DC2CC4D for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:42:39 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) From: Jari Arkko Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E223ACFB-4361-44B1-BC2F-D29FD635C4D2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Message-Id: <76072B2A-DECE-4896-93DC-28637F6864F9@piuha.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:42:39 +0200 References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <20150216173555.15904.qmail@ary.lan> <54E22EA3.1080408@cs.tcd.ie> To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <54E22EA3.1080408@cs.tcd.ie> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 07:42:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E223ACFB-4361-44B1-BC2F-D29FD635C4D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii FWIW, I agree with the suggested points from Leslie/Dave. Jari --Apple-Mail=_E223ACFB-4361-44B1-BC2F-D29FD635C4D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU5EJvAAoJEM80gCTQU46qrDwP/0h9e8xtS3Yu0Cmi6t2BKK6Y BWCesvUO+QygoMorYgrV21h80l/OOK2OLQ4LS/YlKI4JA2becPhwdEEkPNjVa65o fugcOXdqK3J10UiDxfKZtfXU7xisl5CUgD9AsKyvcOSZttx4Az2KcpSP4qdRXtoV jrwgFMusefdsD/zrERQGIWB/+wzBeMbV0JavWtSlxJvxi8D77iPoEh5S7b8HjdhX ++uVwiZbu24KTF6oLIDMvsBOHn2uoosYGIILpSsYthPCrRepOnlIYuuwJ96vlqSJ hLR6MYBUNIgf5g15QUBY8vOOPfqcfNP1WyNbbDv2wz5lYaOztoUb+fSaPHTMSgKo X8gefamo2EVVs7HBHwc+xwIw+3uMQDaoesF+PhNKWi/NhbI/S6JV5VIyanxjvhZu i/vhAE8QkN72jdb+96HBGFHdh4Jt0R28rPcyrRNePAPoGnKxyVzlTwixspTdbGN4 KlcZ2y/R0CYqBI00/ekMp9FQCWuRE4XOd/GmKlV1YYa6BRcOI2pYkQCQwso4yYcd dKyVXkfeBl8ABCl2sL15deJAPJwNIonoB5T9GUF2Tq+us9orYMq+zTiH0EHm+5fJ txJ2AeQtRDg5S8t4xVk2XIKRqBmXIdl9UC6QD+hJgxp4iC1Y3jsWxUTxs3dRbaIR 0+g/N44QhN3Wvj6EEzIS =yYNx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E223ACFB-4361-44B1-BC2F-D29FD635C4D2-- From nobody Thu Feb 19 08:03:32 2015 Return-Path: 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 1608B1A9136 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:03:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 GDmCoyXrUzRL for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from zoidberg.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0101A90E5 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from aran.int.lexiconix.com (pool-108-44-246-138.clppva.fios.verizon.net [108.44.246.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zoidberg.ecotroph.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE07CA05A1; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:03:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:03:21 -0500 From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet Subject: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:03:31 -0000 Thanks, everyone, for your responses and input. I have heard some concerns from Jefsey about the scope of "IETF Trust" versus the Internet community, and one person observed, out of band, that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" instead of "in behalf". Other than that, there is support for these points. So, Marc & I are declaring that the WG has consensus on the points: 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 on behalf of the Internet community. Thanks, Leslie. On 2/16/15 11:03 AM, 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. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Thu Feb 19 09:54:14 2015 Return-Path: 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 264201A001C for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 D6v7F0DXN47O for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9191A039C for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.20.140] ([216.127.117.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1JHs7t5021163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:10 -0800 Message-ID: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:32:23 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking 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)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:11 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:54:13 -0000 On 2/19/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: > > I have heard some concerns from Jefsey about the scope of "IETF Trust" > versus the Internet community, and one person observed, out of band, > that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" instead of > "in behalf". (I'd wondered about on vs. in, too.) The question of scope for the representation being provided is fair and important. From the context of the ICG consideration -- as opposed to the context of our IETF discussion here -- it seems clear that this topic really does concern the "Internet" community and not just the "IETF" community. So, indeed, any role of the IETF Trust with these names is on behalf of the (general) Internet community. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Thu Feb 19 09:57:14 2015 Return-Path: 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 301721A1B34 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:57:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 wtaaArOA9APZ for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 50F861A1B19 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from 14.218.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.218.14]:10970 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YOVLV-0005qZ-Vc; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:57:06 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:56:52 +0100 To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" , "ianaplan@ietf.org" From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:57:13 -0000 At 17:03 19/02/2015, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: >I have heard some concerns from Jefsey about the scope of "IETF >Trust" versus the Internet community, and one person observed, out >of band, that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" >instead of "in behalf". I have no comment on what "on behalf" politically implies, but I read it as in correct legal line with what your NTIA would prefer. No more objection. jfc From nobody Thu Feb 19 11:33:34 2015 Return-Path: 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 42C101A0024 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 izun02tdcoQh for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (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 C9C2B1A008B for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by padhz1 with SMTP id hz1so1968332pad.9 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GU8q/LjjJCphX7LKYw8S3sQ7TPbjE5HTs80pn9Eny2w=; b=myHE2A1D/HSFtRZh5qxKTgeKwEHfoXejP3CYNlCrJzLU8f1eM7lwd0pFHT/aoEvO9f CkdlfccK02xRJ3QNxh6TDYjFgwY4KbgC045ojLyo1Wyga3pkCX7n9yM0kiR1qlzfF8WG mke5IRIKAptfidjx6VQlPaf09otUv0CTYpe8KsQcso6hZ42qtsiI9ViPhBeO0N+vJHl0 phMHSUQn4kQylM4b/lw+IsrIHRI1kpRBXCr4tP9P42GtQ9CQlG57594NXqEILaQH3XPZ yylyrvdhasDjkPOAIwou6lcaVgg3qETmSkZBvPM7FWO6LKgqsqjwdhQXcvh7yw+YRCTk EffA== X-Received: by 10.68.201.168 with SMTP id kb8mr10199829pbc.89.1424374408035; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:652c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:652c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd8sm12038931pdb.93.2015.02.19.11.33.25 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54E63A9E.7030202@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:33:50 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter 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: ianaplan@ietf.org References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:33:32 -0000 On 20/02/2015 06:32, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/19/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: >> >> I have heard some concerns from Jefsey about the scope of "IETF Trust" >> versus the Internet community, and one person observed, out of band, >> that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" instead of >> "in behalf". > > > (I'd wondered about on vs. in, too.) > > > The question of scope for the representation being provided is fair and > important. From the context of the ICG consideration -- as opposed to > the context of our IETF discussion here -- it seems clear that this > topic really does concern the "Internet" community and not just the > "IETF" community. > > So, indeed, any role of the IETF Trust with these names is on behalf of > the (general) Internet community. IANAL, but the formal beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF. It's for the Trust to ask its own counsel whether this matters. That doesn't affect what this WG says, though. Brian From nobody Thu Feb 19 12:02:34 2015 Return-Path: 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 BF4C81A8871 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.231 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, MISSING_MID=0.497] 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 SBxQGIODlQra for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (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 B27B21A8851 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from 14.218.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.218.14]:13046 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YOXIt-0006Wr-2Q; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:02:17 +0100 To: Brian E Carpenter ,ianaplan@ietf.org From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <54E63A9E.7030202@gmail.com> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> <54E63A9E.7030202@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:02:32 -0000 At 20:33 19/02/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >IANAL, but the formal beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF. It's for >the Trust to ask its own counsel whether this matters. > >That doesn't affect what this WG says, though No, Brian. In this case this affects the interest for stability of the internet community. The IETF Turst is asked to accept a responsibility for all the users. Not to decide anything. I am not anymore considering my corporation and its users as bond by IETF technical decisions that have to be approved by the NTIA/FCC. However, it is of common interest for everyone that e-USA and e-Europe, e-Libre, as well as the other e-Global Communities go well together (cf. RFC 6852). My point was only a point of internal consistency of the e-US Community, so it does not imballance the other communities. We have now to think in terms of our own WG-Draft. The IAB iana.arpa is no more the TCP/IP referent. It is for the NTIA/FCC led e-US Community the NTIA/FCC approved iana.org operator. I only hope we can manage to keep it consistent with its equivalent operators on behalf of the other communities. The global community technology/names/numbers/parameters of the network of networks is the new concept affirmed on Jan 8, 2015. It is new, but it is fully consistant with the RFC 6852 modern paradigm. Howevern I am afraid this has not been made fully plained yet by our leaders. Hence my pending appeal. Best jfc From nobody Fri Feb 20 03:36:17 2015 Return-Path: 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 60F0E1A871E; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:36:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 5s-f-jn5Jkk7; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B164F1A872B; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 03:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.21.17.116] (unknown [222.223.186.83]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6F78632E9; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:34:49 +0100 (CET) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=Itji2I7wIri4JqyLOiUeGX3pLeLgW/25x7Bg4xxdBuWmeQt1xOMa88kE+l/krU2AdNFGqEZ9d6uiIbeJZFTV60pArmh3koyvmcOdUMMIJgzDs5Zx64O8VnukX1ycQzeGFp9wUpp+bieIjT5WVy2e71uvZkWpzr4EjWmdAGANCZI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; Message-ID: <54E71BD7.9020300@gondrom.org> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:34:47 +0800 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ianaplan@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: trustees@ietf.org, marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, ldaigle@thinkingcat.com, rpelletier@isoc.org Subject: [Ianaplan] IANA Function IPR; IETF Trust Willingness to Hold X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:36:15 -0000 Leslie & Marc, In response to the question from the ICG to the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015 asked the IETF Trust its opinion on whether it would be willing to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name. On 19 February the Trustees voted on the following: Are you willing for the IETF Trust to make the following statement: In accordance with Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement the IETF Trust would be willing to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name. I am pleased to report that the Trustees approved that motion. The IETF Trust Agreement is located here: Best regards, Tobias Chair IETF Trust From nobody Fri Feb 20 06:18:31 2015 Return-Path: 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 CC8E11A802E for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 D426pqpuqIEq for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from pmta1.delivery2.ore.mailhop.org (pmta1.delivery2.ore.mailhop.org [54.149.210.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2CF1A6F3A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.ore.mailhop.org (172.31.36.112) by pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org id hst11u20r84r for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:05 +0000 (envelope-from ) Received: from pool-74-96-106-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([74.96.106.79] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by smtp3.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YOoPS-00085j-Li; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:26 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP X-Originating-IP: 74.96.106.79 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/FzKY/1Dwe5zsDd27GijPR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:18:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <142B0E93-C502-42CE-A5EB-C27D0DEAC108@istaff.org> References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" , "Leslie Daigle \(TCE\)" , Marc Blanchet Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:30 -0000 On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > The question of scope for the representation being provided is fair and > important. From the context of the ICG consideration -- as opposed to > the context of our IETF discussion here -- it seems clear that this > topic really does concern the "Internet" community and not just the > "IETF" community. > > So, indeed, any role of the IETF Trust with these names is on behalf of > the (general) Internet community. That is one possible formulation; another would be on behalf of the "affected community", i.e. the parties that might be exposed to these names and expect successful dereferencing in the future. While 'IETF community' might imply such, affected community certainly covers it, and avoids a wider scope which includes parties that might never be aware of these terms or their usage. I have no preference in this regard, but note that the typical use of "Internet community" might be overly broad in this context. /John Disclaimer: my views alone. From nobody Fri Feb 20 08:02:42 2015 Return-Path: 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 8C6D11A8826; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:02:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 dJ4BB1rXmzOk; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from zoidberg.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B52A1A87C9; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from aran.int.lexiconix.com (pool-108-44-246-138.clppva.fios.verizon.net [108.44.246.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zoidberg.ecotroph.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438BEA05A1; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:02:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54E75A9C.2040402@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:02:36 -0500 From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Gondrom , ianaplan@ietf.org References: <54E71BD7.9020300@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <54E71BD7.9020300@gondrom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: trustees@ietf.org, marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca, rpelletier@isoc.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] IANA Function IPR; IETF Trust Willingness to Hold X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org 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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:02:40 -0000 That's great! And, thanks for the update. Leslie. On 2/20/15 6:34 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > Leslie & Marc, > > In response to the question from the ICG to the IANAPLAN WG the IETF > Chair on 17 February 2015 > asked the IETF Trust its opinion on whether it would be willing to hold > intellectual property rights > relating to the IANA function, including the IANA trademark and the > IANA.ORG domain name. > > On 19 February the Trustees voted on the following: > > Are you willing for the IETF Trust to make the following statement: > > In accordance with Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement the IETF > Trust would be willing to hold > intellectual property rights relating to the IANA function, including > the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG > domain name. > > I am pleased to report that the Trustees approved that motion. The IETF > Trust Agreement is located here: > > > > Best regards, > > Tobias > Chair IETF Trust > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com -------------------------------------------------------------------