[Internal-cg] Question from the ICG

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Sun Feb 22 15:15:22 UTC 2015

Would it be appropriate for the ICG to bring this to the attention of
the CWG-Stewardship now?
Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:22 AM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: ICG; Izumi Okutani
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question from the ICG


On Feb 20, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> Dear Alissa and the ICG,
> We refer to the question that the ICG asked the IETF community on 9 
> Feb 2015
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01610.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. The numbers community 
> expresses a preference to transfer the trademark and domain, while the

> IETF proposal does not oppose such transfer.
> This is not an incompatibility, it is something that can be satisfied 
> by implementation of both number and protocol parameters community's 
> proposals, as already specified.
> To confirm this, and to determine whether the transfer of the 
> trademark and domain would be acceptable, we consulted the community. 
> It is the opinion of the IANAPLAN working group that they would 
> support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the trademark and domain 
> on behalf of the Internet community. For details, see 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01659.html
> The IETF Trust also looked at this issue. The trustees decided that 
> 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. For details, see 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01664.html
> In short, we find no incompatibility between the proposals and no need

> to modify the protocol parameters proposal.
> Best Regards,
> Jari Arkko and Russ Housley on behalf of the IETF community and the 
> IETF Trust

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list