Re: [Ianaplan] who or what is the proper authority to control the IANA domain and the trademark?

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

> Le 2014-11-09 à 11:11, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
>> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> </snip>
>>> I do not see how any reasonable person can maintain that the fate of
>>> the IANA domain and mark are not relevant to the IANA transition. Any
>>> adequate IANA transition plan has to deal with both those issue.
> 
> The fate (future ownership, etc) of the IANA domain and mark are essential
> to the IANA transition. They just aren't essential to the question of how
> the IETF uses the IANA. The IETF ICG response is about how the IETF uses
> IANA and what the IETF needs from IANA going forward. Other stakeholders
> will be providing other perspectives. The ICG should combine and consider
> these as appropriate.
> 
>>> My position is simple: the IANA domain and mark should be associated
>>> with whatever entity is running the IANA functions. And if ICANN¹s
>>> performance of those functions is contingent upon IETF approval, as it
>>> should be, those resources have to be movable. I have not heard a
>>> single argument against this. I have only heard: ³we don¹t want to
>>> deal with this.
> 
> Speaking as someone with no skin in that game, it sounds reasonable that
> the IANA domain and mark should be associated with whatever entity is
> running the IANA function, sure. In fact it sounds platitudinous. I don't
> however think that ICANN's performance of the IANA function overall is
> contingent on the IETF's approval, and it probably shouldn't be. Only the
> operation of the protocol parameter registries is covered by our agreement
> with ICANN for IANA (RFC2860). The other aspects of IANA's performance
> probably shouldn't be monitored or evaluated by the IETF, as we don't
> operationally interact with them.
> 
> Should the protocol parameter registry be movable? Of course it should.
> And we have the power to move that resource any time we want, irrespective
> of the portability of domain names and trademarks. I don't want our
> flexibility to be limited by getting us all tangled up in obligations
> about trademarks.
> 
>>> As I understand your position, it is that ICANN should be the entity
>>> that holds them perpetually. You have not said this directly, but the
>>> argument ³the fate of the marks and the domain doesn¹t matter² is, de
>>> facto, an argument that ICANN is the proper entity to hold them in
>>> perpetuity because that is who holds them now. Please explain to us
>>> why ICANN should be given a permanent property right in those
>>> resources when it does not and should not have a permanent,
>>> inalienable right to run the IANA functions.
> 
> I doubt it would be possible, or appropriate, to gauge IETF consensus on
> the question of whether or not a corporation should own a perpetual right
> to a trademark. The scope of the IETF and its expertise are more narrow
> than you seem to think. No one here is likely to defend the proposition
> that ICANN or any other entity should have a permanent property right. But
> we are not the right organization to take a stand on this kind of
> question. Surely other organization participating the ICG process are in a
> better position to provide this feedback than us.

I agree with what Jon wrote. My only additional comment is that we should really « raise » the overall issue within our response to ICG.

Marc, as individual.

> 
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan