[Internal-cg] Question from the ICG

[Alissa Cooper]

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