Re: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sat, 19 September 2015 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85E31B45E0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8JY8JdqbKTEt for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CDA31B45DD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so84910807wic.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OzMZF3Fccaa+f7fzmhlYC3t0nISeb8XYzOoUafaGDew=; b=WYhmqLd8wiM5kSYT/6coOW0EXhV6eSYugpesdfFCWOFJV3awfOGSkGvkeQoK4Fa26A kXxPo3pK000ZEmvexiOhHDG7IC6I6uNBEPs6GRPa5bipFv9SFuOpuhDGZSm1Gz33R/R6 /HpJT2UtMHzvUYBuHztFdY0IbbBuvaColsPtvoynKMtWSugzG2zgpbgyohWYiW7AReQl hStn5RZF5EIN5A8U48TK4TnR8knMG+2Fl3k9gN0Zq46qn9H8JpQjJCRLc5SJ2DPK6D4x bsjHdkFLtHNr1Se5dTCz17LLffGUqeIiTP2iYtaEdyy+nMzJkqR5QVYSusirAdPNS6ot XJ4Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.62.137 with SMTP id y9mr10699694wjr.136.1442633877974; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.171.170 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.171.170 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <695427AA-50BB-4C51-9764-4DCEAFF31993@piuha.net>
References: <695427AA-50BB-4C51-9764-4DCEAFF31993@piuha.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:37:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gcuf8K95JYz1GjjLNow6aE0r4zeCV9nMGqxrebGCUbQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f9abd673d40520115f73
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/bDBGeBIVLGHJCC9__bDaW37WtQw>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 03:38:03 -0000

Hi Jari,

Thanks for this update, the agreement categories does make sense. That
said,  I think item 2 and 3 are somewhat interrelated and can be achieved
with a single one off signing by each of the operational communities. For
instance the numbers NRO MoU with ICANN for the formation of ASO has 2
attachment (one being the GPDP for instance) but only the main MoU had to
be signed to validate the rest of the branches.

Nevertheless, I recognise the statement is high level and approach of
implementation can be discussed in details later. Overall, it looks good on
paper.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Sep 2015 00:03, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; wrote:

> We have discussed trademarks and domains in the past, and came
> to a basic agreement. Meanwhile, the names community has also
> indicated that the “IPR in an independent entity” model is acceptable
> to them. But the details for any of this are left for implementation phase.
> That phase will take place once the overall transition plan goes forward.
>
> The IETF Trust has worked in the background to understand the
> situation better, and obviously, if something needs to be done,
> ultimately there has to be agreements and concrete actions need
> to be taken. But before we are that far, we have to talk about the
> overall approach and find a common ground about the implementation
> with all three communities.
>
> With this in mind, the Trust has written up a high-level
> description of what it believes the approach could be.
> We thought that this would be useful for both this WG
> as well as for communication with others.
>
> Please see the description below. The Trust would
> appreciate any feedback you have. The goal is that
> after getting that feedback (and after revision as needed)
> we could have a description that can be used in discussing
> further implementation steps.
>
> Jari
>
> ---
>
> As a part of their transition proposal, the Internet Number
> Community stated that it was their preference that the IANA
> trademark and iana.org domain would be transferred to an entity
> independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and from their
> perspective the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this
> role.
>
> On 8 February, the ICG asked the IETF and Internet Number Community
> to coordinate their transition proposals with regards to the
> trademarks and domains. Discussion in the IETF working group
> indicated that the proposals can be compatible.
>
> At the request of the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015
> asked the IETF Trust whether the Trust would be willing to hold IANA
> intellectual property.  Citing Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement
> whereby the Trust could hold rights in intellectual property and
> domain names relevant to the IETF, the Trustees on 19 February said
> they would be willing to hold the IANA intellectual property.  See
> http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Trust-Minutes-2015-06-25-01.pdf
>
> At the request of the IETF Chair the IETF Trust has engaged in
> discussions with the Internet Number Community about the possibility
> of the Trust assuming this responsibility.  The following is some
> background of the Trust’s position and an overview of how the role
> and responsibilities may be fulfilled.
>
> While this fulfillment is a part of implementation rather than the
> ICG proposal currently out for public comment, the IETF Trust wants
> to ensure progress on determining those implementation steps. The
> Trust is of course only one of the possible ways to satisfy the
> requirements from the Internet Number Community. Nevertheless, the
> Trust wanted to start by suggesting an overall framework for one way
> of satisfying the requirements. There will be a time to discuss the
> details, but first it would be good to have an understanding if this
> overall framework is something that works for the relevant
> communities. This is only an early proposal. Feedback  and
> suggestions are very welcome.
>
> The Trust believes it would need to enter into three different types
> of agreements to effect the transfer of the IANA intellectual
> property (IP) and to enter into licensing arrangements with the IANA
> service provider(s).
>
> These agreements include:
>
> 1.  An Agreement between ICANN and the IETF Trust transferring the
> IANA IP to the IETF Trust
>
> 2.  Community Assurance Agreements between the IETF Trust and each
> of the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the IANA communities)
> regarding the Trust’s commitments to each as further described below, and
>
> 3.  Agreement(s) whereby the IETF Trust provides for the use of the
> iana.org domain, or a subdomain, and licenses the use of the IANA
> trademarks to the IANA service provider(s) selected by the IANA
> communities.
>
> The Trustees are open, in principle, to the idea of entering into
> these agreements. The Trust understands that each community
> would need to follow its own internal processes before entering
> into any agreements, or selecting an IANA service provider.
>
> The Community Assurance Agreements with the IANA communities
> would establish and recognize the responsibilities for each community
> to identify and enter into agreement with their selected service provider,
> and for the IETF Trust to provide, update, and revoke licenses as needed to
> support these selections.
>
> In order to preserve the value and integrity of the IANA trademarks,
> the IETF Trust would maintain, license and monitor the use of the
> trademarks.  Trust actions would include enforcement against
> unauthorized users and monitoring the quality and uses by the
> licensed user(s). The Trust would work with the relevant IANA
> communities to address issues involving a licensee before taking
> action to maintain the quality of the trademarks.
>
> The exact details of the agreements would be subject to negotiation
> among the affected parties.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>