Revised wording
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was necessary as part of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the
RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the 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." If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the
numbers and protocols communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?"
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 12:52 PM
To: internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
This idea was worked out during the informal session yesterday.
I think it had support among everyone there, so here is an attempt to provide specific wording for the transmission of the question:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was necessary as part of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "It is the
preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to [certain expectations related to iana.org and the iana tm] as part of the transition." If this formal request was required by the other communities would the IETF be willing to
make its proposal compatible with that request?”
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project