Re: [Ianaplan] update on trademarks and domains & IETF trust

[Ray Pelletier <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:16:47PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/
> 
> I will note that if you want to follow that list now as a subscriber,
> you can.  You too can get our deathless discussion of IPR issues
> delivered directly to your INBOX!  (It's still closed posting, however.)
> 
> We've also started work on a document of principles.  The draft is not
> complete yet, and there are still some issues to work out, but I at
> least would be extremely happy to hear remarks about what you see
> there, if you have time to read and comment.  You can see the document
> at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i4ad4/edit?usp=sharing.
> Unfortunately, it seems that in Google docs when you have read-only
> access you can't see the comments either.
> 
> There are a couple issues that I think are quite important still to
> sort out.
> 
> First, there's a set of things about the registration of iana.org.
> The goal here is to use a registrar that can require multiple
> approvals from different parties before changes are made.  That way
> the IANA operator can have (and be assured of) technical control of
> the domain while the registration is yet held by the Trust.  I know
> there is at least one regisrtar that offers this sort of service
> (Network Solutions, "Web Lock"), but if there are more I'd be happy to
> hear about it so that we could point that out.
> 
> Second, there's the issue of the exclusive vs. non-exclusive license.
> We have some registries that we treat as IANA registries but that are
> strictly speaking not.  The enum registry, for instance, is not
> operated by IANA.  Also, according to RFC 6557 the TZ Database is
> operated by ICANN as if it were an IANA function under the IETF-ICANN
> MoU but it is carefully called out as not an IANA function.  I'm not
> sure whether this affects the license discussion (I'll be seeking
> expert legal advice on this, but I wanted to note it as unsettled
> business).
> 
> Third, and perhaps most important, is the discussion in 3.g.  There's
> a tricky problem here.  The Trust will own the trademarks.  Under
> trademark law, this means that the Trust will have a duty and a right
> to enforce uses of the trademark.  So, if the Trust thinks that
> there's a problem and it's gone unresolved, the Trust needs to be able
> (in its sole discretion) to cancel the trademakk license to an IANA
> operator.  At the same time, we want the individual operational
> communities to have the power to select their operators.  The key
> thing here in 3.g. is to see whether the balance is right given what
> we want and the constraints of trademark law.

It would be my expectation that the Trust would give notice to the
relevant operational community(s) and provide the IANA Operator with
a reasonable opportunity to cure the problem.  I would also expect
the Trust would be informed in its ultimate decision to cancel the
trademark and domain use by input from the relevant operational
community(s).

Ray
Trustee
IAD

> 
> Obviously, any comments are welcome, but those are some substantive
> issues that I think need attention.  Remember that this is not a
> contract, but a set of principles under which we're going to work out
> the final arrangements.  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan