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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

> Well, either that, or the ability of one side to pour resources into a
> dispute even if their legal foundation is poor.  One of the facts we
> have to face is that one of the parties that would be in such a
> dispute has way more lawyers and money than we do.  I do see certain
> force in the position that, given the IETF's situation, it would be
> really good for the IETF if the IETF Trust had control of the mark and
> domain name.  But that brings us to another argument, made I think
> best by Avri: why is giving up that control to the IETF (or an
> organization whose fiduciary responsibility is just to the IETF) at
> all in the interests of the other communities?

I was thinking of responding to Avri, and will do it here.

The summary of the IETF Trust (from http://trustee.ietf.org) includes:

    The purposes of the trust include the advancement of educational and public
    interest by acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and
    future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet
    standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the science and
    technology associated with the Internet and related technology.

I think this clearly includes the activities of the three communities (names, addresses, and protocols) if the IETF Trust was to hold the IANA domain and trademark IPR.  The work of the names and addressing communities fit within this scope.  They are all working to advance the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology.

Further, the IETF clearly does more than act in it’s own self interest.  It is open to everyone, it does it work by volunteers, and it publishes it’s work freely without charge.  It does not have a revenue stream based on it’s work.  It only purpose it to create a lot of the technology that makes the Internet work.

I think the IETF Trust would be a fine place to hold the IANA related IPR if the community desired it.

Bob (former IETF Trust trustee)



> 
> If it's not, then we revert to the position that we need a common and
> neutral trust to hold this, and at that point it seems to me we're
> back to re-inventing ICANN.
> 
>> Nowhere in this process is there a stipulation that says you are bargaining with ICANN, or NTIA, or ICG or the names community, or anyone else, and have to "give something up" to be able to achieve a gain.
> 
> Of course not.  But if different communities want dramatically
> different things, then there are only two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  Nobody gets what they want.
> 
> 2.  Somebody gets what they want.  In this case, either someone just
> loses, or else the loser is persuaded to give up.  The "persuasion"
> usually under such circumstnaces involved some other gain.  That's
> what bargaining is always like.
> 
>> So if all 3 communities can come to consensus on the movement of the IANA-related IPR into the IETF Trust, then it will happen.
> 
> Well, yes, but that's the counterfactual right now: we know that one
> of the communities has a proposal that is incompatible with one of the
> other communties.  So we're in the stage where people are having a
> tussle over that movement of the IPR.
> 
>> I can think of all kinds of things that can happen in the names community, in the CCWG, in Congress, in NTIA, among goverments, but nothing happening here poses a serious risk.
>> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean, but what I read in your text
> is that if the IETF said, "Whoa, we can't agree to that," it wouldn't
> present a risk to the transition.  Suppose, for instance, that we're
> not able to get the affirmations that the registries are in the public
> domain and that the incumbent IANA operator would co-operate in a
> transtion.  Suppose, worse, that the outcome was in fact an explicit
> IPR claim over the content of the registries (a not completely
> imaginary possibility -- someone suggested it to me at one point).
> You're not saying that the IETF's position in such a case wouldn't
> derail the transition, right?  You just mean that, given the position
> the IETF formed consensus around, that's not likely to be the thing
> that causes trouble, correct?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan