Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sat, 01 November 2014 09:10 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 D574A1A6FE8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 mSZ8u21rfqhG for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249791A8877 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 02:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-47-20.adslplus.ch [178.39.47.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA19AAUH018657; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:10:11 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:10:08 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEEJICNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <FC8732DC-BB60-45A2-BF30-0B085CA5FEB9@cooperw.in>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/swjbomE8vbcC5GE4X_5uvxDuMG4
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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, 01 Nov 2014 09:10:26 -0000

Please see below,

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa
> Cooper
> Sent: samedi, 1. novembre 2014 01:12
> To: Marc Blanchet
> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working
> group last call
>
>
> I’d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of
> the document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns
> this text:
>
> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>    to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>    agreement that-
>   ...
>
>    2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>        subsequent operators."
>
> My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to
> two operators.

Any type of property, including intellectual property such as copyrights and
trademarks, can be jointly owned by two or more legal entities (physical
persons and/or legal persons).

Of course the "two operators"  would have to sort out and agree how they
would share the mark in question, but that is their problem.

>So if we end up in a situation where there are
> multiple IANA operators for different registries, how will it be
> decided who gets the existing marks?

As mentioned above, the multiple operators would have to agree amongst
themselves.

>If I were the current owner
> of such marks, I don’t see how I could agree to this provision
> without foreclosing the possibility that there may be multiple
> simultaneous operators in the future.

I don't agree.  It just makes a future transition somewhat more complicated,
because the "multiple simultaneous operators" would have to agree how to
handle the situation.

>This is why I think this
> requirement should be stated as requiring “cooperation with
> subsequent operators to minimize confusion" associated with marks
> and identifiers, or some similar language that provides a
> safeguard in the event of transition but does not mandate
> specific transfer actions related to marks and identifiers.

You seem to be reopening this issue.

A simple solution, which had been suggested, is that the mark and domain
name be transferred to the IETF Trust, which surely could be relied upon to
allow them to be used appropriately by whoever (one or more entities)
provides the IANA function now or in the future.

I'm OK with Eliot's compromise language in "02".  If people think that that
results in a situation that is too complex, then I suggest that we adopt the
simple solution outlined above.

I'd be happy to propose specific language if it is agreed that we do down
that path.

>
> I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires
> the IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of
> maintaining the existing relationship that the IETF has with the
> IAOC wherein it is the IAOC’s responsibility to determine the
> format in which is carries out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.

I find that the language in "02" is not as clear and definitive as I would
have liked it to be, but I'm OK with that language.  But I would likely not
be OK with anything weaker.

>
> Alissa
>
> On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marc Blanchet
> <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working
> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our
> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if
> people send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be
> addressed or discussed before or during the meeting.
> >
> > Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
> >
> > Please send comments to the list.
> >
> > Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>