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

Hi Alissa,

On the basis that Annexes are not considered to be part of a proposal then
thats fine. By the way i am member of the CWG at the same time i am careful
of avoiding miss-representing/mis-interpreting the CWG proposal

Regards

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Seun,
>
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > > 1. State that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle to hold
>> > > the IANA IPR as an asset for the entire Internet community. I think
>> > > that would be a useful addendum to the IANAPLAN document, but it
>> > > shouldn't be allowed to hold up the RFC publication.
>> >
>> > The RIR side has suggested this, I can't see many reasons for why we
>> can't
>> > support that view. It does make sense, maybe except for the names-people
>> > that so far don't like it for whatever reason.
>>
>> Let me clarify: the "names community" did not really oppose that view at
>> all. There is really only one member of the CWG who has taken a firm
>> position against it and he unilaterally drafted some text in an appendix
>> that was never vetted by the CWG as a whole. There are several people in
>> the names community who support using the IETF trust (I am one of them).
>>
>
> Just to clarify Milton, the CWG proposal gives certain "exclusivity" on
> IANA trademarks to PTI so i don't think it would be sufficient to say there
> are no direction on this from the CWG proposal. As to those who support
> moving to IETF trust, i am one of such people but mine is not with a
> necessity clause.
>
>
>
> I think what Milton was getting at is that the text about the trademark is
> not in the CWG proposal, but rather in an annex that does not form part of
> the consensus proposal. I captured the CWG co-chair’s explanation of this
> from the CWG engagement session yesterday, copying here for everyone’s
> reference:
>
> >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: YEAH, GO TO -- THAT'S FINE. LET'S GO WITH THE REMOTE
> FIRST AND --
> >> IS THAT FINE? OKAY. SO THE REMOTE PARTICIPATION QUESTION IS FROM McTIM.
> THE QUESTION IS: GIVEN THAT THE NUMBERS COMMUNITY CALLS --- IETF AND THE
> IETF RESPONDS, IN PARENTHESES, NO OBJECTION TO GOING IT TO THE IETF TRUST
> AS NUMBERS COMMUNITY PROPOSES, WHERE IS THE RECORD OF THE CWG DISCUSSION OF
> THE CURRENT IANA TRADEMARK TEXT? WHAT WAS THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION THAT LED
> TO THIS AND WHERE IS THE RECORD OF THAT?
> >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: OKAY. SO THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A BUZZ AROUND
> THE IANA TRADEMARK ISSUE. LET ME BE CLEAR WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL, FIRST OF
> ALL.
> WHAT WE HAVE IS THE -- THE MENTION OF THE TRADEMARK IN THE PROPOSAL IS IN
> ANNEX S, AND WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS, "WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW IS AN INITIAL DRAFT,
> PROPOSED TERMS SHEET, THAT COULD BE A PRECURSOR TO THE ICANN PTI CONTRACT.
> THIS IS BASED ON A LEGAL MEMORANDUM. TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS TERMS SHEET IS
> INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL GOVERNS. THIS
> TERMS SHEET WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PTI AND ICANN,
> WITH PTI HAVING INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE."
> AND THEN IT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED KEY TERMS AND IT SAYS,
> "TERMS," IN SQUARE BRACKETS, ARE PLACEHOLDERS ONLY. THE TEXT THAT THEN GOES
> ON TO TALK ABOUT THE TRADEMARK IS IN SQUARE BRACKETS.
> SO IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL, I COULDN'T IMAGINE A SOFTER REFERENCE TO THAT
> TEXT. IT'S SIMPLY -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY STRONG ASSERTION WITH RESPECT TO
> THE TRADEMARK. SO IN A SENSE, WHERE THAT LEAVES US IS ABSENT A POSITION ON
> THE TRADEMARK AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WHICH WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK ON.
> IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT THE EXISTING PROPOSALS ARE NOT, AT FIRST BLUSH,
> SELF-CONSISTENT, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT ON SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING FROM
> THE ICG THEY HAVE BECOME CONSISTENT, AND WE NOW NEED TO DO SOME WORK WITH
> THE OTHER COMMUNITIES TO TRY AND BRING ALL THREE PROPOSALS INTO LINE AND WE
> HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF DOING SO.
> SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. THE PROPOSAL ISN'T -- IS NOT
> UNEQUIVOCAL BY ANY MEANS. IN FACT, IT TECHNICALLY DOESN'T ASSERT ANYTHING
> WITH RESPECT TO THE TRADEMARK AND WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK TO RECONCILE
> THAT, THEREFORE, WITH THE OTHER TWO COMMUNITIES' PROPOSALS.
> I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL IN CLARIFYING THE POSITION.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>>
>> I personally think it would be helpful if the IETF is able to make its
>> IANAPLAN document state that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle
>> to hold the IANA IPR.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !