[Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC

Sat Feb 7 04:35:11 UTC 2015

These changes ok with me.

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Russ Housley; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC

I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:

The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org> domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says:

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role."

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?

On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

No problem.

"The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain was a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator." 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?"

From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC

Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".

Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".

Russ

On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:

"The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain was a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocols communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?"

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150207/3ccc24df/attachment.html>