Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[manning bill <[e-mail]>]

exactly.  protecting the NAME/BRAND.    I would have thought this effort would have focused on the use of multiple, cooperating parties to 
perform a specific suite of functions, and not have fallen into the rathole of branding and trademark.  

“The entities responsible for the list of tasks identified in NTIA contract# (and follow-ons),  therein referred to as “The IANA””
"The listed tasks are;  a) severable, and b) may be performed by entities not referred to by any of the exiting marks:  (IANA, ICANN, NTIA, RIR, ARIN.RIPE,LACNIC,APNIC,AFRINIC, NRO, ASO, 
GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, IETF, ISOC, IAB, (fill in the rest of the blanks).”
“If the tasks are severed, there will need to be agreed on criteria to ensure the parties are performing their functions for the global benefit of the users of the Internet and not to the benefit of the tasked parties.”
“In the event of non-compliance, there will need to be agreed on criteria for re-assignment of the affected task(s) to qualified parties”


Or are those statements fundamentally wrong?

If these types of questions are deemed inappropriate or untimely - I am sorry.  

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 8November2014Saturday, at 21:23, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The owner of trademark can use it to assert ownership not only of a directly corresponding domain name, but also of similar names. 
> 
> However that does not necessarily imply that it is desirable for the IETF Trust to own the IANA trademark. Trademarks (particularly ones involving registrations in multiple countries) can be quite expensive to register and protect. So unless the Trust has examined the costs involved and finds them manageable, it might make more sense to focus on the conditions for transfer to a successor contractor.
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2014, at 6:27 PM, manning bill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> so you are more worried about the name and not the function?
>> 
>> /bill
>> PO Box 12317
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
>> 310.322.8102
>> 
>>> On 8November2014Saturday, at 17:05, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 8, 2014, at 2:36 PM, manning bill <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Removal of or rehoming some of the trappings of power (who controls IANA.*) seems like a niche question at best.
>>> 
>>> [BA] I would agree that our goal should be to ensure that this is a non-issue.
>>> 
>>> However, I do NOT agree that the issue can be ignored. Trademarks in particular can be very powerful things, and it is quite common for trademark owners to challenge uses that even vaguely resemble the trademark, even in uses that might appear peripheral. 
>>> 
>>> The responsible thing here is to avoid amateur lawyering and get advice from counsel.
>>