Re: [Ianaplan] who or what is the proper authority to control the IANA domain and the trademark?

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

>Milton L Mueller wrote:
</snip>
>> I do not see how any reasonable person can maintain that the fate of
>> the IANA domain and mark are not relevant to the IANA transition. Any
>> adequate IANA transition plan has to deal with both those issue.

The fate (future ownership, etc) of the IANA domain and mark are essential
to the IANA transition. They just aren't essential to the question of how
the IETF uses the IANA. The IETF ICG response is about how the IETF uses
IANA and what the IETF needs from IANA going forward. Other stakeholders
will be providing other perspectives. The ICG should combine and consider
these as appropriate.

>> My position is simple: the IANA domain and mark should be associated
>> with whatever entity is running the IANA functions. And if ICANN¹s
>> performance of those functions is contingent upon IETF approval, as it
>> should be, those resources have to be movable. I have not heard a
>> single argument against this. I have only heard: ³we don¹t want to
>> deal with this.

Speaking as someone with no skin in that game, it sounds reasonable that
the IANA domain and mark should be associated with whatever entity is
running the IANA function, sure. In fact it sounds platitudinous. I don't
however think that ICANN's performance of the IANA function overall is
contingent on the IETF's approval, and it probably shouldn't be. Only the
operation of the protocol parameter registries is covered by our agreement
with ICANN for IANA (RFC2860). The other aspects of IANA's performance
probably shouldn't be monitored or evaluated by the IETF, as we don't
operationally interact with them.

Should the protocol parameter registry be movable? Of course it should.
And we have the power to move that resource any time we want, irrespective
of the portability of domain names and trademarks. I don't want our
flexibility to be limited by getting us all tangled up in obligations
about trademarks.

>> As I understand your position, it is that ICANN should be the entity
>> that holds them perpetually. You have not said this directly, but the
>> argument ³the fate of the marks and the domain doesn¹t matter² is, de
>> facto, an argument that ICANN is the proper entity to hold them in
>> perpetuity because that is who holds them now. Please explain to us
>> why ICANN should be given a permanent property right in those
>> resources when it does not and should not have a permanent,
>> inalienable right to run the IANA functions.

I doubt it would be possible, or appropriate, to gauge IETF consensus on
the question of whether or not a corporation should own a perpetual right
to a trademark. The scope of the IETF and its expertise are more narrow
than you seem to think. No one here is likely to defend the proposition
that ICANN or any other entity should have a permanent property right. But
we are not the right organization to take a stand on this kind of
question. Surely other organization participating the ICG process are in a
better position to provide this feedback than us.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.