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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The owner of trademark can use it to assert ownership not only of a directly corresponding domain name, but also of similar names.
>>
>> However that does not necessarily imply that it is desirable for the IETF Trust to own the IANA trademark. Trademarks (particularly ones involving registrations in multiple countries) can be quite expensive to register and protect. So unless the Trust has examined the costs involved and finds them manageable, it might make more sense to focus on the conditions for transfer to a successor contractor.
> It is not at all clear whether the IETF has any need to own the
> IANA mark or domain; if the IETF determines that its use of the
> mark and domain are important to the protocol parameter function,
> then it only needs to ensure that it has the ability to use them -
> that does not require ownership, only an appropriate agreement
> providing for such use with the owner... (while there may be some
> merit in being that owner, that is more than strictly necessary.)
>

The primary reason for addressing the issue is to avoid or reduce the 
potential for costly trademark litigation down the road.  If all remains 
cooperative, as may predict, then there's no issue at all. On the other 
hand, if an edge case arises - an attempt to change IANA contractors 
under less-than-cooperative situations - there is the potential for 
nasty litigation, as well as technical game playing.

As a general rule, organizations don't "go into business" with the 
expectation of unfriendly relations.  Contracts are written to create 
clarity as to roles, and responsibilities, and to attempt to detail, in 
advance, how edge cases are to be handled.  In the eventuality of things 
going wrong, the clearer the contract, the less likely things are to end 
up in costly litigation.

RFC2860 (or more accurately the MoU and supplemental agreements) contain 
pretty clearly written language (IMHO).  To the extent that we are 
recommending or proposing changes/additions to existing contractual 
arrangements, as part of our proposal response - it behooves us to be as 
clear.

To the earlier comment that we're spending way to much time on this:  
Each clause in a contract deserves as much attention as each paragraph 
in a technical spec.  That's the nature of the beast.

Miles Fidelman


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