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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Feb 20 17:00:07 CET 2015 

Thank you very much Alan. Most helpful.

I made two changes -

1. Word "expecation" is replaced with the words "requirement" and "must"
for consistentency with the 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.

 - I'm personally in favour of Alan's draft as this is inline with the
   essence of what we agreed within the CRISP Team , and was partially
   reflected in the second draft
 - Then again it was pointed out on the ianaxfer list that this is not
   clearly stated that way on our proposal, and a few other members
   expressed support on the list, so it may be safe to avoid using
   these words when submitting to the ICG this time, and use the
   wording consistent with the proposal.

2. Just describe the observation from the numbers community
Since we will be reponding as the numbers community, I think we should
focus on the observation as the numbers community. The IETF will submit
their response with the observation from their side. I kept the last
sentence


CRISP Team,
Please let me know ASAP if you have further comments.
I will be online until UTC17:30, and after UTC 21:30.

I will also share this with Jari and Russ, so that our reponses are
coordinated, even though  we do not have enough time to submit a joint
statement before the deadline.

(I may add in the reponse that we plan to make a joint statement, if
they think it is useful to add)


Izumi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

* It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA
 trademark and IANA.ORG domain are 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.

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.  From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we
observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF
Trust further support the position that there is no conflict.


Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team


On 2015/02/20 23:48, Alan Barrett wrote:
> 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)

More information about the CRISP mailing list