[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
apb at cequrux.com
Fri Feb 20 15:48:26 CET 2015
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
> 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
* 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
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
and the IETF Trust has approved a motion indicating that they would be
willing to hold the rights in question (see
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.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP