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

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 22 Jun 2015, at 14:01, Bob Hinden wrote:

> Andrew,
>
>> Well, either that, or the ability of one side to pour resources into 
>> a
>> dispute even if their legal foundation is poor.  One of the facts we
>> have to face is that one of the parties that would be in such a
>> dispute has way more lawyers and money than we do.  I do see certain
>> force in the position that, given the IETF's situation, it would be
>> really good for the IETF if the IETF Trust had control of the mark 
>> and
>> domain name.  But that brings us to another argument, made I think
>> best by Avri: why is giving up that control to the IETF (or an
>> organization whose fiduciary responsibility is just to the IETF) at
>> all in the interests of the other communities?
>
> I was thinking of responding to Avri, and will do it here.
>
> The summary of the IETF Trust (from http://trustee.ietf.org) includes:
>
>  The purposes of the trust include the advancement of educational and 
> public
>  interest by acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain 
> existing and
>  future intellectual property and other property used in connection 
> with the Internet
>  standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the 
> science and
>  technology associated with the Internet and related technology.
>
> I think this clearly includes the activities of the three communities 
> (names, addresses, and protocols) if the IETF Trust was to hold the 
> IANA domain and trademark IPR.  The work of the names and addressing 
> communities fit within this scope.  They are all working to advance 
> the science and technology associated with the Internet and related 
> technology.
>
> Further, the IETF clearly does more than act in it’s own self 
> interest.  It is open to everyone, it does it work by volunteers, and 
> it publishes it’s work freely without charge.  It does not have a 
> revenue stream based on it’s work.  It only purpose it to create a 
> lot of the technology that makes the Internet work.
>
> I think the IETF Trust would be a fine place to hold the IANA related 
> IPR if the community desired it.

agree. (as individual)

Marc.

>
> Bob (former IETF Trust trustee)
>
>
>
>>
>> If it's not, then we revert to the position that we need a common and
>> neutral trust to hold this, and at that point it seems to me we're
>> back to re-inventing ICANN.
>>
>>> Nowhere in this process is there a stipulation that says you are 
>>> bargaining with ICANN, or NTIA, or ICG or the names community, or 
>>> anyone else, and have to "give something up" to be able to achieve a 
>>> gain.
>>
>> Of course not.  But if different communities want dramatically
>> different things, then there are only two possibilities:
>>
>> 1.  Nobody gets what they want.
>>
>> 2.  Somebody gets what they want.  In this case, either someone just
>> loses, or else the loser is persuaded to give up.  The "persuasion"
>> usually under such circumstnaces involved some other gain.  That's
>> what bargaining is always like.
>>
>>> So if all 3 communities can come to consensus on the movement of the 
>>> IANA-related IPR into the IETF Trust, then it will happen.
>>
>> Well, yes, but that's the counterfactual right now: we know that one
>> of the communities has a proposal that is incompatible with one of 
>> the
>> other communties.  So we're in the stage where people are having a
>> tussle over that movement of the IPR.
>>
>>> I can think of all kinds of things that can happen in the names 
>>> community, in the CCWG, in Congress, in NTIA, among goverments, but 
>>> nothing happening here poses a serious risk.
>>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean, but what I read in your 
>> text
>> is that if the IETF said, "Whoa, we can't agree to that," it wouldn't
>> present a risk to the transition.  Suppose, for instance, that we're
>> not able to get the affirmations that the registries are in the 
>> public
>> domain and that the incumbent IANA operator would co-operate in a
>> transtion.  Suppose, worse, that the outcome was in fact an explicit
>> IPR claim over the content of the registries (a not completely
>> imaginary possibility -- someone suggested it to me at one point).
>> You're not saying that the IETF's position in such a case wouldn't
>> derail the transition, right?  You just mean that, given the position
>> the IETF formed consensus around, that's not likely to be the thing
>> that causes trouble, correct?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan