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

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

On 11/9/14, 7:34 AM, "John Curran" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
>  I was probably unclear in my points above - my first point is simply
>that
>  if the use of the mark and domain name are deemed incidental to the
>proper 
>  functioning of the IETF's protocol parameter registries, then the
>potential
>  for costly trademark litigation is rather low, as the IETF can always
>switch 
>  to use of some other name if continued use of the IANA name & mark is
>not 
>  possible.

That is my view of the situation. I can understand why people seek clarity
from lawyers, and indeed I can't claim I perfectly understand the legal
circumstances under which we currently use the IANA "mark" in our RFCs (if
it relies on anything beyond the RFC2860 agreement, say). But I see no
realistic contingency in which the IETF would enter into costly trademark
litigation to defend our right to populate a protocol parameter registry.
We would just populate a different registry. So I see no need to take
preemptive steps to secure the mark for ourselves. And then...

>  If use of the IANA mark/name is important to proper functioning of the
>IETF's 
>  protocol parameter registries, then some arrangement should be made so
>that 
>  it is available for this purpose.  My second point was simply that
>arranging 
>  for use of the mark/name does not mean obtaining ownership; it likely
>can be 
>  accomplished with proper licensing regardless of the owner, and
>discussion 
>  (in the case of use of the name/mark being relevant) should be focused
>on 
>  ensuring the IETF has appropriate arrangements, which does not
>automatically
>  mean requiring ownership of the marks and name.

Explaining our past and present use of the IANA to the ICG, and then
empowering the IAOC to negotiate something that preserves "backward
compatibility" in the event of a transition (as I gather Eliot's language
soon will), should get us a certain way down this path. A license alone
can't cover some contingencies: in some sorts of transitions, licenses
might end up in flux. But if the IAOC believes securing some further
license would help preserve "backward compatibility" here, that'd be fine
with me. Still, if worst comes to worst, we're going to have other
remedies at our disposal than the courts.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.