Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then. --- 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? Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss 2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Kavouss, To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing. Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, ICG needs invite both to reconcile and receive a reconciled response. What you proposing is to tacitly maintain incompatible requirements for the issue. I see no problem to invite them to reconcile. My wording was " with a view to reconcile" Kavouss 2015-02-09 3:19 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
Hi Kavouss,
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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 <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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
We are asking them whether they "are willing" to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal. It is not like we have the authority to "force" either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, "if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled." If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP Hi Kavouss, To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing. Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss 2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then. --- 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? Please either send us your response or let us know that you'll need more time by February 21, 2015. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed. I disagree with your wording Pls read and listen to the discussion We need to ask them to coordinate their views with a view to reconsider their position aiming to reconcile Pls do reconsider your views and accept one of the several compromises that I made Regards Kavouss 2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal.
It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.
--MM
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper *Sent:* Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ICG *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Hi Kavouss,
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa
Tks I have a small edit as follows :
If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them?
Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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 <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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss, with respect, I don’t think you are reading and listening to what I said below. We are now asking them whether they are willing to coordinate or reconcile their views. If they say yes, problem solved. If they say no, we weigh whether this creates an incompatibility. That is step 2 If we decide that it does, we send the proposal back to both of them and ask to get it solved If we decide it does not, we combine the proposals as is At any rate, we do not need to rephrase the question now to do that. We wait to see if step 2 is required. We cross that bridge when we come to it. --MM From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:36 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP Alissa, The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed. I disagree with your wording Pls read and listen to the discussion We need to ask them to coordinate their views with a view to reconsider their position aiming to reconcile Pls do reconsider your views and accept one of the several compromises that I made Regards Kavouss 2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal. It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP Hi Kavouss, To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing. Alissa On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss 2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then. --- 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? Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks for this explanation Milton. It lays out things clear. Full support from me. We have not had any discussion yet whether a non-resolution will create an incompatibility. Patrik
On 9 feb 2015, at 11:41, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Kavouss, with respect, I don’t think you are reading and listening to what I said below.
We are now asking them whether they are willing to coordinate or reconcile their views. If they say yes, problem solved. If they say no, we weigh whether this creates an incompatibility. That is step 2 If we decide that it does, we send the proposal back to both of them and ask to get it solved If we decide it does not, we combine the proposals as is
At any rate, we do not need to rephrase the question now to do that. We wait to see if step 2 is required. We cross that bridge when we come to it.
--MM <> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 10:36 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Alissa, The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed. I disagree with your wording Pls read and listen to the discussion We need to ask them to coordinate their views with a view to reconsider their position aiming to reconcile Pls do reconsider your views and accept one of the several compromises that I made Regards Kavouss
2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@syr.edu>>: We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal.
It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.
--MM <> From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Hi Kavouss,
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Kavouss, i do not recall that we came to the conclusion you indicate. --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 09.02.2015, at 11:35, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed. I disagree with your wording Pls read and listen to the discussion We need to ask them to coordinate their views with a view to reconsider their position aiming to reconcile Pls do reconsider your views and accept one of the several compromises that I made Regards Kavouss
2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal.
It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Hi Kavouss,
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa
Tks I have a small edit as follows :
If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them?
Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks,
Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ 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
All very true. However it is by far too early to do anything more than what Alissa proposed. I support sending the message as Alissa drafted it. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 09.02.2015, at 11:18, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be required for a complete and workable proposal.
It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Hi Kavouss,
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
Alissa
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss: I do not agree with this change. I think we should send the question as written. We should coordinate, not direct. Russ On Feb 8, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Alissa Tks I have a small edit as follows : If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them? Kavouss
2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>: I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
_______________________________________________ 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 good. On Feb 8, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
---
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?
Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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?
Alissa, Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above: The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible? Russ
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early? Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
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?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed. One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency". Russ M On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
Milton, If the course of actions you have outlined will be followed then I have no problem to follow the stepwise course of actions. By the way I read carefully and listen carefully thus no need to be reminded by any one as I am not so ding Tks Kavouss 2015-02-09 4:55 GMT+01:00 Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com>:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
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?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (8)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Russ Housley -
Russ Mundy