Re: [Ianaplan] update on trademarks and domains & IETF trust

[Andrei Robachevsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

The framework looks good. It is a pragmatic proposal fully consistent
with the ICG proposal as far as I can see. I support this.

Andrei

Jari Arkko wrote on 21/01/16 00:33:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> For information, I wanted to provide a small update on the question of trademarks and domains related to the IANA arrangements. As you may recall, the IETF proposal chose to not make any particular requirements related to moving to handling them in any particular way. But the RIR community proposal and later the full ICG proposal wanted to move them to a location independent of the IANA operator, possibly the IETF Trust: http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf
> 
> At the time we had said that it would be in principle OK, subject to details to be determined and agreed upon. The ICANN board also noted that they would be OK with moves, if agreed by the operational communities: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en
> 
> Later we had circulated a framework that explained what types of agreements would be necessary to move the trademarks and domains to the IETF Trust: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gbPZgVdXAKIQKJRM1po6Nbod-6w
> 
> And now to 2016. Earlier this month the names community CWG has made a tentative decision that they would in principle be OK with this arrangement: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/004603.html
> 
> As a result, the three communities are now coordinating to see if we can set this arrangement up. From the IETF Andrew and me are part of a small coordination group. A mailing list is being set up with public archives for the coordination group, and I will share the link as soon as I have it. As a part of these discussions, I have shared an early draft for principal terms associated with the relevant agreements (a copy at the end of this email). This is being discussed and probably significantly revised, but it is a start. The most important thing is to ensure that the agreement between the OCs and the IETF Trust have the sufficient and proper rights for the parties. For instance, that the OCs have the rights they need to control and use the IANA trademarks and domains for their purposes. And yet, the usual IETF-only operation of the IETF Trust should not be affected.
> 
> My plan is that the coordination group needs to come up with mutually acceptable principal terms. Once we have those, we can take the matter further. In the IETF system the IETF Trust and the IAOC is the one responsible for final approval of the agreements. But we will keep the community updated as well. If anyone has feedback on the early draft terms, the trustees and the small coordination group would certainly appreciate feedback.
> 
> Jari
> 
> ——
> 
> Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements
>