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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 22, 2015, at 12:02 AM, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> There are registries of values.   There are “IANA" registries of values.
> 
> Right. ICANN runs them all, and has trademark registrations in relevant areas.  I presume you have read the registrations at the USPTO.

John -

The marks are with ICANN simply because it was more appropriate that ICANN 
(as the IANA contractor upon formation) take on responsibility for any effort and
costs associated with maintenance or enforcement of the intellectual property…
USG explicitly recognized the transfer from USC-ISI to ICANN in order to facilitate
this maintenance, given that ICANN was being formed to take on in a more formal 
manner the duties that Jon (et al) had been doing previously.

ICANN’s overall “coordination role” with respect to the entire set of IANA registries
was recognized in the initial bylaws through mission statement and the inclusion of 
the Supporting  Organizations, including the the Protocol Supporting Organization
(PSO) with respect to the IETF activities.   It is probably worth remembering that 
ICANN and the IETF reviewed this role during the ICANN Evolution and Reform
process in 2002, with the IAB specifically noting that the IANA work (per RFC2860)
is an integral component of the IETF’s Internet Standards function - 

	"The IAB notes that this role is undertaken for the IETF as part of the process of implementation of "IANA Considerations" in Internet Standards-track protocol specifications (IETF protocols), as specified in the MoU documented in RFC2860, and is distinct from the ICANN role in the management of domain names and unicast IP addresses. This IETF protocol parameter coordination role is an integral component of the IETF’s Internet Standards function. For this reason the IAB disputes the assertion in the ICANN mission statement that this particular role forms an integral part of ICANN’s mission.”

This discussion eventually led to the removal of the PSO from the ICANN’s Bylaws,
and recognition that ICANN’s role in administration of the IANA registries was well
covered by the RFC 2860 MOU.  In large part because of the overall stability that
was provided by the NTIA IANA Functions contract, there was no particular reason
to revisit the intellectual property arrangements at that time. 

Should we (at that time) have looked into the IPR implications of a potential future
termination of the IETF/ICANN MOU (RFC 2860) and transition another hypothetical
IANA operator?    Given the remote possibility of making any actual change, and the 
overall NTIA stewardship in place, one can easily argue that working on such issues
would have been overkill at the time.   In our present  situation, with a post-NTIA 
environment imminent, it would seem rather prudent to explore these issues.  The
present location of the IANA marks is almost immaterial to the analysis, as that is a
reflection of administrative convenience determined by the community during 
ICANN’s formation rather than any matter of inherent role or responsibility.

Thanks,
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.