IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Sat, 20 June 2015 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D051A9128 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7NxHO3UZZak for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22c.google.com (mail-yh0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA6A1A9121 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhnv31 with SMTP id v31so65952659yhn.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UUdfrOfN79Aq4/8WdnBHOiLauJp1SbBXncr7j1NXXl4=; b=rMrgSrfcHmOZcT2Yn2z/RCEzOMknCc+tAW1t0WhNEf5hBVMmZsWi9qJQVmFAEAHA24 3FjKB+ZSp/Y0nDins8H6jv6eyalr0+3W8oeHqtJmBJFuZSfNS0gYqmSreIB+kfJLpRpW 92umc1/GFRFyOr/L+HKFsLFyGJ2vG7xPXCOBOYAvLliMkr8mIOSaAMgnmuUsmuceT1D5 wMxkZBCEgqs8v7gpGMOJL50npUKiUYCJtkb+McFt0QapQTKMZg6aB0yMGQfrKuqIOcuS yU74Hv/XkE/zzLzOAdH9PbIM8Nsj7mbCWoNSd7cvBd/GPzk/DuZC5wpaspE3xkl31ppY chAA==
X-Received: by 10.170.189.211 with SMTP id g202mr52307yke.117.1434829396822; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-73-138-177-174.hsd1.fl.comcast.net. [73.138.177.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x8sm11894448ywa.41.2015.06.20.12.43.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
In-Reply-To: <CB2E8A54-4A4D-4DDF-BE62-B15BFC52C42D@istaff.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 15:43:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F576AF8-A9D3-44BC-83EE-0CD86D5BF07D@gmail.com>
References: <20150619170708.84611.qmail@ary.lan> <3F18936E1587B5F2BB89E800@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55847BE9.9040507@gmail.com> <5584BC64.7060403@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local> <55855F68.4090906@gih.com> <CB2E8A54-4A4D-4DDF-BE62-B15BFC52C42D@istaff.org>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/MdJdpqAuoGT8qwZF01lq_oxcSUA>
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:43:19 -0000

There is one peculiar aspect of this, which is that currently the IETF has no license to use the IANA trademark, yet it does appear to use it with regularity.  If the IETF's field of use is covered by the registration then there is an issue *today*, yet this topic does not appear to be covered in the MOU nor in the NTIA-ICANN contract, as far as I can see.

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 10:46 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 8:41 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
>> 
>> IMHO the Trademark issue might only come to light if the IANA services
>> were split among more than one provider. If all three services are
>> transferred to a new provider, I would imagine that the trademark would
>> be part of the package (databases, procedures etc.) that would be
>> transferred to the new provider. I am entirely in agreement with you
>> that if we had to cross that bridge due to the seriousness of a broken
>> situation, the trademark would be the least of anyone's concerns.
> 
> Incorrect.   The trademark issue comes to light the moment that the IETF is asked 
> to enter into an IANA mark licensing agreement, since from that point onwards, the 
> IETF would be bound to the terms and condition of same in a manner that could 
> complicate administration of any of the IANA protocol registries and yet not rise to 
> the level of establishing a new non-IANA name under which all IANA registry related 
> tasks and documentation is produced.
> 
> To my knowledge, the IANAplan wg has not discussed whether its “maintain the
> status quo” position means that the IETF would not enter into such an agreement,
> or would do (as proposed by the current CWG draft document.)
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email