Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 9, 2014, at 3:19 AM, Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> John Curran wrote:
>> 
>> It is not at all clear whether the IETF has any need to own the
>> IANA mark or domain; if the IETF determines that its use of the
>> mark and domain are important to the protocol parameter function,
>> then it only needs to ensure that it has the ability to use them -
>> that does not require ownership, only an appropriate agreement
>> providing for such use with the owner... (while there may be some
>> merit in being that owner, that is more than strictly necessary.)
> 
> The primary reason for addressing the issue is to avoid or reduce the potential for costly trademark litigation down the road.  If all remains cooperative, as may predict, then there's no issue at all. On the other hand, if an edge case arises - an attempt to change IANA contractors under less-than-cooperative situations - there is the potential for nasty litigation, as well as technical game playing.

Miles - 
 
  I was probably unclear in my points above - my first point is simply that
  if the use of the mark and domain name are deemed incidental to the proper 
  functioning of the IETF's protocol parameter registries, then the potential
  for costly trademark litigation is rather low, as the IETF can always switch 
  to use of some other name if continued use of the IANA name & mark is not 
  possible.

  If use of the IANA mark/name is important to proper functioning of the IETF's 
  protocol parameter registries, then some arrangement should be made so that 
  it is available for this purpose.  My second point was simply that arranging 
  for use of the mark/name does not mean obtaining ownership; it likely can be 
  accomplished with proper licensing regardless of the owner, and discussion 
  (in the case of use of the name/mark being relevant) should be focused on 
  ensuring the IETF has appropriate arrangements, which does not automatically
  mean requiring ownership of the marks and name.

> As a general rule, organizations don't "go into business" with the expectation of unfriendly relations. Contracts are written to create clarity as to roles, and responsibilities, and to attempt to detail, in advance, how edge cases are to be handled.  In the eventuality of things going wrong, the clearer the contract, the less likely things are to end up in costly litigation.

  Correct, but that refers to the desire for clear arrangements (which I was
  not arguing) - my point was simply that, should the IETF deem that it has
  a need in the use of the mark & name, it is not clear that ownership is the
  only option available.
  
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.