[Internal-cg] Question from the ICG
jari.arkko at piuha.net
Fri Feb 20 21:46:20 UTC 2015
Dear Alissa and the ICG,
We refer to the question that the ICG asked the IETF community
on 9 Feb 2015
> 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
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
In short, we find no incompatibility between the proposals and no
need to modify the protocol parameters proposal.
Jari Arkko and Russ Housley on behalf of the IETF community and
the IETF Trust
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg