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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, June 22, 2015 10:32 -0300 John R Levine
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> ICANN runs them all?  Really?  I guess that will be a
>> surprise to the  IEEE-SA (MAC addresses), and ITU (E164
>> addresses), to name just two.
> 
> Hmmn. When I look at the IEEE page for MAC addresses, it says
> they're operating on behalf of the ISO.  Is there an IANA
> connection documented anywhere?
> 
> https://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/public.html

Sigh.  I don't have time to explain the ISO- IEEE relationship
in that area but, at one stage (and for years) there was at
least a subtree of some IEEE-operated registry (can't remember
whether it was MAC addresses or Ethertypes and don't have time
to look it up) that was operated by IANA.  My recollection is
that we handed it [back] to IEEE some years ago.  

> Olaf says that E164 is operated by RIPE, you say it's operated
> by the ITU. Here's the web page:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/dns/enum

RIPE-NCC.  There is a collaboration arrangement with ITU-T, but
RIPE-NCC operates the actual registry and does so (deliberately)
with more discretion than we usually give IANA these days.  Most
of the model is described in RFC 3245.
 
> It says it's run by both under delegation from the IAB but
> doesn't claim to be IANA.
> 
> So there are certainly registries in other places than ICANN,
> but it's not obvious that they call themselves IANA.

As far as I know, none do, although, at various times, "IANA"
has been used both to describe a specific organization and to
describe the collection of protocol-related registries, some of
which are assigned to places other than that organization.
Whether using a term that belongs to one organization to refer
to services provided by another is a trademark issue or just
informal or sloppy terminology is a question probably best left
to the trademark lawyers.

   john