[Internal-cg] Question from the ICG

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Feb 23 16:33:59 UTC 2015

The IETF response was forwarded to the CWG by a participant in several of the processes (Seun Ojedeji). I have forwarded the RIR response to the CWG.


On Feb 22, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Would it be appropriate for the ICG to bring this to the attention of
> the CWG-Stewardship now?
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> -----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
> Thanks! 
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list