IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sat, 20 June 2015 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ocl@gih.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 427DD1A6F38 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 pUXhH_E9wHbi for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939FB1A6F30 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390D818F3AF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 13:40:52 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=TG7Os/gJu 7mYfhxaWlIHQQfnwuU=; b=dklPZwsccy59cIIFpZU8WHzhW159u/C49YSnTFkjw 35uJMVWcui1InU1b6huP9BnF8BSVY9vluHI7WQ0Ff1Kzwlx37vM/2+r7O4+ghh9+ rlyPgv/WEkNr570LPmhQMJ+x2G10Hu7A8HJHWMrSBniZpUqGZ2gfoqR1Jp7pkqXC Ic=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=G3n u6CpOLrBO55+Nxm5TPpfIWiIql8kYoF4u/xT2FjHEA8zqoae9X2fPlDnyPpAs9qS SicOVThq9U2b0441L7BJsPYz00OU6HzAiOTCCpY88EzPIyGAFohJmIAh0s8XBn4b j4jY4G5K29UAtzu82vSLEmpJs16wNG/CWRdWCHDs=
Received: from [IPv6:2620:f:8000:210:d0f6:d347:85b7:6dd7] (unknown [IPv6:2620:f:8000:210:d0f6:d347:85b7:6dd7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EDD818F3AD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 13:40:50 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <55855F68.4090906@gih.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:41:12 -0300
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <20150619170708.84611.qmail@ary.lan> <3F18936E1587B5F2BB89E800@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55847BE9.9040507@gmail.com> <5584BC64.7060403@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1506192151170.47260@ary.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rbAW8DUkiVnmiZjIM9KJOBcrd50>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
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 12:41:24 -0000


On 19/06/2015 22:57, John R Levine wrote:
> The names plan to license the trademark to PTI follows from that, PTI
> would provide the service, so PTI would be using the trademark.
>
> It'd only become a problem if things changed and some or all of the
> services were provided by someone else.  As I've said enough times
> that it's likely getting annoying, if we arrive at that point, the
> domain name and logo on the provider's web site will be the least of
> our concerns. 

IMHO the Trademark issue might only come to light if the IANA services
were split among more than one provider. If all three services are
transferred to a new provider, I would imagine that the trademark would
be part of the package (databases, procedures etc.) that would be
transferred to the new provider. I am entirely in agreement with you
that if we had to cross that bridge due to the seriousness of a broken
situation, the trademark would be the least of anyone's concerns.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email