Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: For your Information: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sat, 20 June 2015 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 0F94C1B2D9C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 00:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 1UtBAKMV6xY7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 00:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 658801B2D84 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 00:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.92]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5K7fYaS007105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:41:34 +0200
Received: from Timea (247-15.bbned.dsl.internl.net [82.215.15.247]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5K7fWCt005946; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:41:33 +0200
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: <avri@acm.org>, <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <D1A45F80.1B274%grace.abuhamad@icann.org> <90E3156B-428B-4A61-92B7-BAC932842FB5@viagenie.ca> <557F63E2.40302@gmail.com> <20150619155355.GI17513@mx2.yitter.info> <55847B53.60106@gmail.com> <5584C304.9000806@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <5584C304.9000806@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:41:41 +0200
Message-ID: <005c01d0ab2c$8de9b9c0$a9bd2d40$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdCq+TeX6MrQLcedSCi9DPPcyzPgUgAMilYA
Content-Language: fr-ch
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.6.0.2.8
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/kYGZZVOMDd_VCsaKyB27BxUR-Yo>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: For your Information: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Jun 2015 07:41:42 -0000

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Avri
> Doria
> Sent: samedi, 20. juin 2015 03:34
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: For your Information: CWG-Stewardship
> Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval
> 
> Hi,
> 

SNIP

> 
> I admit that despite the respect I have for the IETF and its Trust,
> given that the Trust's fiduciary responsibilities are solely to the
> IETF, I argue that the IANA domain names and any trademarks associated
> with them should be transferred to the PTI along with the other assets
> necessary for doing its job.  And if that can't happen, then remaining
> with ICANN seems the next best option to me.

The goal of transferring the mark and the domain name to an entity external
to ICANN was, it seems to me, to achieve some separation. In the current
CWG-Stewardship draft proposal, PTI is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICANN,
with a Board whose majority is ICANN. If I understand the proposal
correctly, PTI could not become independent of ICANN unless the ICANN Board
agreed to that.

So transferring the mark and the domain name to PTI has, in my view, no
effect: you may as well leave them with ICANN.

If they remain with ICANN, then, as previously discussed on this list and
elsewhere, ICANN has full control of how the mark and the domain name are
used. Some people don't see a problem with that, others do.

To be clear, I would object to any change with respect to the previous
proposal to transfer the mark and the domain name to an external entity, and
I do think that the IETF Tust would be the right entity to which to transfer
them.

> 
> I do agree with those who question the license being for exclusive
> ICANN/PTI use.  Not being a lawyer of any sort, I will look into the
> reasons given for the exclusive license and see if can find any
> reasonable basis for it.  I tend to think that this is something that
> should/could probably be adjusted on ICG recommendation.
> 
> avri
> 
SNIP
>