Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

David Conrad wrote:
> Miles,
>
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Well, it might be helpful to know that history.  At one point, SRI was IANA,
> No. SRI was "The NIC". The IANA was the IANA (before that "the numbers czar"). These are different entities. In many cases, the IANA would often direct The NIC to do stuff.

My mistake.  Memory clouds with time.  Jon was at ISI.
> I believe it more accurate to say that the IANA function was performed at the behest of the IETF community and that the folks who performed that function were funded indirectly by the USG. That is, my understanding is that the IANA was _NOT_ a line item in any budget, rather the support costs that paid for Jon's, Joyce's, et al. salary were pulled from the "Tera-node" Project among others.
>
>> and still is, who actually has legitimate claim to the trademark, and how does that play against the domain registration policy?
> It would seem the US PTO believe that ICANN has the claim to the trademark. I'll admit not knowing the intricacies of how trademarks impact domain registration policy.

Which kind of leads to the question of how ICANN ended up with the 
trademark.

As to domain registration policy: ICANN administers (sets?) the UDRP 
(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) as part of its 
agreements with registrars, which includes this:

*a. Applicable Disputes.* You are required to submit to a mandatory 
administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a 
"complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with 
the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 
or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

Miles


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra