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 http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Paul, Colleagues: The following issue was also raised in relation to the Numbers proposal in the informal meeting, I have fleshed them out further: We appreciate the clarification that there is one contract with 5 RIR signatories. In the SLA Principles, paragraphs 5,6 and 7 propose the ability to to review and possibly terminate the Agreement with the Numbering Services Operator. Can these rights be applied by each RIR? If so, could that result in the multiple SLAs across different operators. Will the SLA address these issues. Is there any limitation on individual RIR rights of exercise? is there a role for the NRO? It was agreed that each operational community might choose a different jurisdiction, but with 5 RIRs, there are 6 possible jurisdictions (including names operator) where the SLA could be interpreted. Could this lead to divergent outcomes and lack of predictability? Will the SLA specify a law or set of laws to applied (this includes for Arbitration and will Arbitration be binding)? Finally would it be useful to specify further requirements on paragraphs 3 and 4 as inputs to the definition of accountability procedures in parallel working groups? Best- Joe On 2/6/2015 12:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
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
http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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 http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision: "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?" 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 http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal". Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community". Russ On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
No problem. "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?" From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal". Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community". Russ On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision: "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain was a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence: The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.” 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? On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
These changes ok with me. From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence: The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org> domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role." 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? On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: No problem. "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain was a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://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." 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?" From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal". Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community". Russ On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision: "The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org<http://iana.org/> domain was a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?" _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Looks ok to me as well. Jari On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Looks fine to me. Russ On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This question looks good to me and, just to be clear, the same question will be sent to the Number and Protocols OC. Russ M On Feb 7, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Russ
On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Do we want to ask for a response by a particular date? On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
This question looks good to me and, just to be clear, the same question will be sent to the Number and Protocols OC.
Russ M
On Feb 7, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Russ
On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Yes, what do you being active in the communities say? Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 14:46, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Do we want to ask for a response by a particular date?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
This question looks good to me and, just to be clear, the same question will be sent to the Number and Protocols OC.
Russ M
On Feb 7, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Russ
On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I think this is a good and very useful question. Good work Milton, Jari, and Alissa. Lynn On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:29 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement 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. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was a requirement 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. 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?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (8)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Lynn St.Amour -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Russ Housley -
Russ Mundy