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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Seun,

On Jun 23, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > 1. State that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle to hold
> > > the IANA IPR as an asset for the entire Internet community. I think
> > > that would be a useful addendum to the IANAPLAN document, but it
> > > shouldn't be allowed to hold up the RFC publication.
> >
> > The RIR side has suggested this, I can't see many reasons for why we can't
> > support that view. It does make sense, maybe except for the names-people
> > that so far don't like it for whatever reason.
> 
> Let me clarify: the "names community" did not really oppose that view at all. There is really only one member of the CWG who has taken a firm position against it and he unilaterally drafted some text in an appendix that was never vetted by the CWG as a whole. There are several people in the names community who support using the IETF trust (I am one of them).
> 
> Just to clarify Milton, the CWG proposal gives certain "exclusivity" on IANA trademarks to PTI so i don't think it would be sufficient to say there are no direction on this from the CWG proposal. As to those who support moving to IETF trust, i am one of such people but mine is not with a necessity clause.


I think what Milton was getting at is that the text about the trademark is not in the CWG proposal, but rather in an annex that does not form part of the consensus proposal. I captured the CWG co-chair’s explanation of this from the CWG engagement session yesterday, copying here for everyone’s reference:

>>JONATHAN ROBINSON: YEAH, GO TO -- THAT'S FINE. LET'S GO WITH THE REMOTE FIRST AND -- 
>> IS THAT FINE? OKAY. SO THE REMOTE PARTICIPATION QUESTION IS FROM McTIM. THE QUESTION IS: GIVEN THAT THE NUMBERS COMMUNITY CALLS --- IETF AND THE IETF RESPONDS, IN PARENTHESES, NO OBJECTION TO GOING IT TO THE IETF TRUST AS NUMBERS COMMUNITY PROPOSES, WHERE IS THE RECORD OF THE CWG DISCUSSION OF THE CURRENT IANA TRADEMARK TEXT? WHAT WAS THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION THAT LED TO THIS AND WHERE IS THE RECORD OF THAT? 
>>JONATHAN ROBINSON: OKAY. SO THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A BUZZ AROUND THE IANA TRADEMARK ISSUE. LET ME BE CLEAR WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL, FIRST OF ALL. 
WHAT WE HAVE IS THE -- THE MENTION OF THE TRADEMARK IN THE PROPOSAL IS IN ANNEX S, AND WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS, "WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW IS AN INITIAL DRAFT, PROPOSED TERMS SHEET, THAT COULD BE A PRECURSOR TO THE ICANN PTI CONTRACT. THIS IS BASED ON A LEGAL MEMORANDUM. TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS TERMS SHEET IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL GOVERNS. THIS TERMS SHEET WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PTI AND ICANN, WITH PTI HAVING INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE." 
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED KEY TERMS AND IT SAYS, "TERMS," IN SQUARE BRACKETS, ARE PLACEHOLDERS ONLY. THE TEXT THAT THEN GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE TRADEMARK IS IN SQUARE BRACKETS. 
SO IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL, I COULDN'T IMAGINE A SOFTER REFERENCE TO THAT TEXT. IT'S SIMPLY -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY STRONG ASSERTION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRADEMARK. SO IN A SENSE, WHERE THAT LEAVES US IS ABSENT A POSITION ON THE TRADEMARK AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WHICH WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK ON. 
IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT THE EXISTING PROPOSALS ARE NOT, AT FIRST BLUSH, SELF-CONSISTENT, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT ON SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING FROM THE ICG THEY HAVE BECOME CONSISTENT, AND WE NOW NEED TO DO SOME WORK WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITIES TO TRY AND BRING ALL THREE PROPOSALS INTO LINE AND WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF DOING SO. 
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. THE PROPOSAL ISN'T -- IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL BY ANY MEANS. IN FACT, IT TECHNICALLY DOESN'T ASSERT ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE TRADEMARK AND WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK TO RECONCILE THAT, THEREFORE, WITH THE OTHER TWO COMMUNITIES' PROPOSALS. 
I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL IN CLARIFYING THE POSITION. 

Alissa

> 
> Regards
>  
> 
> I personally think it would be helpful if the IETF is able to make its IANAPLAN document state that the IETF Trust is the most appropriate vehicle to hold the IANA IPR.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: [phone]
> alt email: [e-mail]
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan