Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and domain name

Jefsey <> Tue, 23 June 2015 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFD01A8F3C for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.134
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZV5NLRJkmGi for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDE9F1A6F11 for <>; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:51063 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1Z7QZ5-0007F6-Ia; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:56:47 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:56:44 +0200
To: Eliot Lear <>, Brian E Carpenter <>, John R Levine <>,
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20150619170708.84611.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506201928040.47864@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211008240.48224@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506211400250.48860@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221032250.50421@ary.local> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506221056420.50578@ary.local> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and domain name
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:56:50 -0000

The Draft is subject to my appeal. It should not therefore be 
published before the RFC 2026 procedure - which may involve ISOC - is 
completed. In order to have a better hands-on experience of this IANA 
trademark issue, it is my intent to give the "" domain name 
to the "international all-network association" in order for them to 
set, experience and operate a mutual documentation and registry system.

This way to proceed turned out to be positive with ISO where we 
eventually allied: in case of an UDRP I will not object to transfer 
the name to who will best protect the users interests. This "who" 
will then have to be legally determinated.


At 15:51 23/06/2015, Eliot Lear wrote:

>On 6/23/15 8:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understood Dave's plan, but what I would suggest (which
> > doesn't involve any bargaining chips as far as I can see) is:
> >
> > 1. State that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle to hold
> > the IANA IPR as an asset for the entire Internet community. I think
> > that would be a useful addendum to the IANAPLAN document, but it
> > shouldn't be allowed to hold up the RFC publication.
>That document is in the RFC Editor queue but is being held for the final
>combined document (that has been the plan all along) so that we can
>either reference or append it to make clear what the final outcome was,
>for the record.  We do not normally amend other text beyond the
>agreement, but this is entirely up to the area director.  I do wonder if
>it would be useful to include as appendices consensus positions such as
>that reached on February 19th in response to the ICG query.
>If rough consensus has evolved to a different point, that would be
>useful to clarify.  But again, I would suggest that the point here is
>not to tell the Trust that we require that the domain and the trademark
>and IPR be held, but rather that we simply state that it is our desire
>to retain rights to use of them, should the IFO change, and how that
>happens is a matter of discussion between lawyers and those who are
>negotiating on our behalf, and not engineers.
>Ianaplan mailing list