Subject: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org

From: John Loughney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 16:25:59 +0200

Hi all,

Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo.  Any particular reason why?  It just kind of jumps out at you ....

John

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:11:22 +0100

Actually I believe that it should not be there any logo fro Neustar. Is a
paid service, right ?

I think if we agree, as a community to have a logo, then it will be fine,
but we can then consider having a logo for each of the contributors and the
companies that pay for their salaries and traveling expenses.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: John Loughney <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 16:25:59 +0200
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the Neustar
> logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo.  Any particular reason why?
> It just kind of jumps out at you ....
> 
> John
> 
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 07:26:31 -0800

At 4:25 PM +0200 1/2/06, John Loughney wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that 
>the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo.  Any 
>particular reason why?  It just kind of jumps out at you ....

Eeeew. Fully agree.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 16:30:49 +0100

--On mandag, januar 02, 2006 16:25:59 +0200 John Loughney 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed that the
> Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the ISOC logo.  Any

They seem to have it in place of the word "Neustar".... CNRI used to have 
their name there, and no logo. CNRI's had its name there at least since 
1996, so it's kind of traditional to name the operator.

                     Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:07:09 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> They seem to have it in place of the word "Neustar".... CNRI used to 
> have their name there, and no logo. CNRI's had its name there at least 
> since 1996, so it's kind of traditional to name the operator.
> 

It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we can get the scale
adjusted.

     Brian

---

From: "Mark Foster" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:45:42 -0500

Would that this be the biggest transition issue we have to deal with ;-) 

Our offices are closed today, but we'll address shortly thereafter.

R, Mark

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 11:07 AM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: [email-masked]; John Loughney
Subject: Re: Question about the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org

> since 1996, so it's kind of traditional to name the operator.

It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we can get
the scale
adjusted.

     Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:20:02 -0500

--On Monday, 02 January, 2006 17:07 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Just out of curiosity, when browsing www.ietf.org, I noticed
>>> that the Neustar logo on www.ietf.org is larger than the
>>> ISOC logo.  Any particular reason why?  It just kind of
>>> jumps out at you ....
>> 
>> They seem to have it in place of the word "Neustar".... CNRI
>> used to  have their name there, and no logo. CNRI's had its
>> name there at least  since 1996, so it's kind of traditional
>> to name the operator.
> 
> It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if
> we can get the scale adjusted.

Well, being very reluctant to get the IETF involved with
advertising any for-profit entity, I'm not sure it is fair.
More important,  I'd argue that the "traditional" part is
something we just got ourselves out of at great pain.  The CNRI/
Foretec logo belonged there as part of the general notion that
the secretariat was something that CNRI was supplying to the
IETF, not a set of services for which the IETF was contracting.
It went along with the notion of the secretariat being "hosted"
somewhere, rather than being an contractual activity for which
the IETF was paying.  Making that distinction, and obtaining the
control it implies, was arguably a significant part of the
motivation for the IASA.

In the present environment, there is, IMO, a significantly
stronger argument for adding logos for every company that is
supporting the IETF via significant earmarked contributions to
ISOC than there is for adding a logo for Neustar or any other
entity that is, in theory at least, providing a service to the
IETF for which the IETF/IASA are paying full value.   I don't
think we want all of those other logos either, and that suggests
that the home page should display only the IETF logo and perhaps
the ISOC one, but not those of any contractors the IASA should
happen to decide to hire.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 13:50:00 -0800

> It's traditional, and I think fair. I'll ask the IAD to see if we can 

John Klensin's note does a very nice job of suggesting why it is not 
*automatically* the right thing to do.

In particular, his line of analysis points out the need to a) have an 
appropriate criterion, and b) apply it consistently.

The relationship with CNRI had characteristics vastly different from those with 
Neustar.

My personal opinion about the listing is that I don't know what is right. 
That's why I like John's effort to approach the question in terms of goals and 
balance, rather than simply invoking prior practise.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:22:39 +0100

At 22:50 02/01/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>In particular, his line of analysis points out the need to a) have 
>an appropriate criterion, and b) apply it consistently.
>The relationship with CNRI had characteristics vastly different from 
>those with Neustar.
>My personal opinion about the listing is that I don't know what is 
>right. That's why I like John's effort to approach the question in 
>terms of goals and balance, rather than simply invoking prior practise.

NeuStar is the ".us" Registy and has entered into an open root 
agreement with the GSMA, supporting the ".gprs" TLD. That the IETF 
pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a political 
signal. After Harald's, John's and your mails, to maintain that link 
and the size of the logo will be perceived as a political RFC 3935 
decision. Three choices are possibles (keep it, reduce it, remove 
it). All now have a meaning.

It would probably be advisable that NeuStar proposes by its own to 
remove mention and link from the welcome page. A links to a "NeuStar 
Secretariat" page (not their main commercial page) in the IASA page 
seems adequate.
jfc

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:37:06 -0800 (PST)

> advertising any for-profit entity, I'm not sure it is fair.

I agree and in fact would extend this to include non-profit entities not
directly involved in standards work.

> control it implies, was arguably a significant part of the

Exactly so. The type of underlying relationship we have has changed (hopefully
for the better) and that argues strongly for a break with past precedents.

> happen to decide to hire.

Complete agreement here.

				Ned

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Jan 2006 23:15:37 -0000

> pays to host a link to them may certainly be perceived as a
> political signal.

Oh, no, not this again.  Neustar's .gprs TLD exists only on a special
purpose private network disjoint from the public Internet, used for
GSM signalling and invisible to anyone who doesn't run a GSM phone
switch.  It is not the network that GSM phone users see when they use
web or mail services over their phones.  I don't care what names the
GSMA uses on their private network, and I don't see any reason that
anyone else would, either.

There may be reasons not to like Neustar, but the fact that they
happen to provide network infrastructure to phone companies is not one
of them.

R's,
John

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:55:57 +0100

At 00:15 03/01/2006, John Levine wrote:
>switch.

Dear John,
do you agree I ask your head the day I can reach ".gprs" names from my PC?

>It is not the network that GSM phone users see when they use

ICANN has suggested the IETF to run a testbed on this kind of 
evolution. It even suggested to use classes as per the adequate 
proposition of John Klensin. The IETF prefered not to.

>happen to provide network infrastructure to phone companies is not one

No reason to dislike NeuStar. They introduce competition where there 
is none. IMHO this is a blessing for the native Internet and a 
challenge for the international network and the IGF. What is 
dangerous is to consider all this neutral.

jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:06:45 -0500

John, perhaps the logos on the IETF website are an issue on which we
can agree to let the IAOC decide reasonable policy and apply it.  It
seems like a long discussion here does not advance our goals.
-
--Sam