[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG

[Alan Barrett]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>Today has been so hecktick full of meetings, so I will take a look in
>details around UTC15:00 and share the updated draft.

I took the liberty of incorporating the comments, adding a URL to 
the question we were asked, and adding information about recent 
decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and IETF Trust

Here's my draft:

[[[
Dear Alissa and the ICG,

We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community
on 9 Feb 2015
<https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>:

> 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?

We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the 
numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given 
below.  However, if they are indeed incompatible, then the numbers 
community would be willing to consider modifying our proposal.

* The numbers community has a requirement that the IANA
  trademark and IANA.ORG domain must be available for the use
  of IANA Numbering Services in the future, even if the IANA
  Numbering Services Operator is changed from ICANN to some other
  operator, or if different communities choose different IANA
  operators in the future.

* In order to meet that requirement, 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, provided this is supported by the IETF community, and
  the IETF Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only
  option, and the numbers community is open to consider other
  solutions which work for other affected parties.

We further observe that the IETF ianaplan group appears 
to have reached consensus on the following statement, 
which is compatible with the CRISP Team's proposal (see 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01659.html>):

   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.

and the IETF Trust has approved a motion indicating that they would be
willing to hold the rights in question (see
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01664.html>):

  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.

To summarize: The numbers proposal does not set a "MUST" condition 
to transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust or to any other 
specific entity, and the IETF proposal does not say it will oppose 
transfer of the mark and domain to the IETF Trust, so we do not 
observe any incompatibilities.  Subsequent decisions by the IETF 
ianaplan group and the IETF Trust further support the position 
that there is no conflict.

[insert signature]
]]]

--apb (Alan Barrett)