Subject: [Ianaplan] Transition update from ICANN53

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:46:57 +0200

All:

These are my perceptions from attending ICANN53 and following the transition
discussions:

http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/07/iana-stewardship-transition-update-from-icann-53/

Jari

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:40:27 +1200

On 08/07/2015 04:46, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/07/iana-stewardship-transition-update-from-icann-53/

in which he wrote

> The names community proposal Annex S includes draft language for the treatment of trademarks. We have discussed the role of IANA trademarks and domain at the IETF on previous occasions. The draft language was in conflict with the RIR proposal, and might also have caused problems for us at the IETF. However, the CWG (Cross-community Working Group) representing the names community clarified that this text is not a part of the actual proposal, and shall be considered indeed only as a draft. This removed the only currently known conflict between the proposals, although, of course, we still need to find an acceptable way for the three communities to handle the trademarks and domains in the implementation phase of the transition.

So, is there a need for us to agree on a "What if?" position
on this, or do we simply defer it? And if we defer it, do we defer
it to the IAOC and Trust as an operational question, or do we keep
IANAPLAN alive but sleeping?

    Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:29:03 -0400

Hi Brian,

> IANAPLAN alive but sleeping?

Just my personal opinion, but in my experience deciding what to do
before you really must cuts off options that you otherwise might have
liked.  So I would suggest that we each think about these things,
follow the discussions if interested, and hang on until all of us find
out that we must make some decisions.  We have consensus on a strong
position that is widely hailed as a good and wise one.  Let us cleave
to that until we find we must alter our opinions.

Best regards,

A (again, for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]