Subject: [Ianaplan] Consensus? Question from the ICG

From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:03:53 -0500

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
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:46:43 -0800

> points, as expressed by Dave Crocker (thanks!) on February 9, 2015:

+1  (duh)

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:52:49 +0100

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 

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).

> 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: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:54:21 +0100

> On 16 Feb 2015, at 17:03, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) <[email-masked]> 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:
> 
> 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

> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Feb 2015 17:35:55 -0000

>If there are objections to these points, please let us know by 00h00 UTC 

Looks OK to me.

R's,
John

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:43:15 -0800

And to me as well.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:53:39 +0000

Ditto
S

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:59:59 -0500

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:36:52 +1300

Adding to the chorus, +1.

   Brian

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:16:26 +0900

+1, too.   Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:32:16 +0100

>+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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:42:39 +0200

FWIW, I agree with the suggested points from Leslie/Dave.

Jari

---

From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:03:21 -0500

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:

     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.

--

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:32:23 -0800

> that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" instead of

(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/

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:56:52 +0100

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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:33:50 +1300

> 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: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:02:17 +0100

At 20:33 19/02/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>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: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:18:24 -0500

> 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.