[Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Mon Feb 9 03:41:35 UTC 2015

Kavouss, with respect, I don’t think you are reading and listening to what I said below.

We are now asking them whether they are willing to coordinate or reconcile their views.
If they say yes, problem solved.
If they say no, we weigh whether this creates an incompatibility. That is step 2
If we decide that it does, we send the proposal back to both of them and ask to get it solved
If we decide it does not, we combine the proposals as is

At any rate, we do not need to rephrase the question now to do that. We wait to see if step 2 is required. We cross that bridge when we come to it.


From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:36 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Alissa Cooper; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP

The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed.
I disagree with your wording
Pls read and listen to the discussion
We need to ask them to  coordinate their views  with a view to reconsider their position aiming to reconcile
Pls do  reconsider your views and  accept  one of the several compromises  that I made

2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>:
We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal.

It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.


From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP

Hi Kavouss,

To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.


On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

Tks I have a small edit as follows :
If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities  are invited to  reconsider their viewpoint with a view  to reconcile them?

2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>>:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.


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?

Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.

Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150209/f21732ea/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list