[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
apb at cequrux.com
Tue Feb 10 01:03:31 CET 2015
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> FYI. There is some discussion going on in the IETF (IANAPLAN WG)
> on how to answer Alissa's question.
> IMO, the proposals are indeed incompatible only if the IETF
> opposes the change. And only in this case an action would be
> required from our side.
I think that we should involve our community in the discussion.
My understanding is that there is no real conflict. The three
communities involved, and their positions as I understand them,
Numbers: prefer that the the IANA trademark and domain name
be transferred to the IETF trust;
IETF (ianaplan group): discussed it, and decided not to state
IETF Trust: has not been formally approached.
It's easy to imagine solutions that satisfy all three, so there is
no conflict, just some details to be worked out.
My suggestion is:
1. The CRISP Team asks the ianaxfer group:
a) whether transfer of the IANA IPR is required
or merely desirable.
b) whether transfer itself should be part of the transition,
or whether a commitment to transfer in the future
would be sufficient.
c) to discuss ways of dealing with a potential future in which
names, numbers, and protocol parameters, are each
handled by a different IANA operator.
2. The CRISP Team reports the result of 1 above to the IETF
ianaplan group, and asks the IETF ianaplan group to confirm that
they have no objection to transferring the IANA IPR.
3. The CRISP Team reports the result of 1 and 2 to the IETF Trust
and asks the IETF Trust whether they would be willing to
accept the IPR.
Or we could skip step 1, and go straight to asking whether the IETF
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP