Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 11 January 2017 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D04112941E for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:34:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XFtG6uuFeF1K for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD8E1293DF for <>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E406911525 for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:34:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EviaJvIsPugV for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:34:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D698114DB for <>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:34:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:34:22 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-19.txt
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:34:28 -0000

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:57:51AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I thought a part of the reason
> that we (IETF/IETF trust) took on the so-called "ipr" was because
> we were best placed in terms of having the most healthily sceptical
> attitude to the (lack of) value supposedly-inherent in that "ipr"?

There may be different reasons around the community why different
people thought it was ok for the Trust to end up holding this.
Perhaps a public mailing list is not the ideal place for me to vent^W
express my feelings about trademarks on "IANA" or related logos.

> is that I don't care about the IETF trust issues and conclude that
> reasonable grammar ought win in this case.

whether you care about IETF Trust issues makes no difference, because
the IETF Trustees, and only the IETF Trustees, are indivudually on the
hook for making sure their fiduciary duty with respect to the Trust
property is fulfilled.  Therefore, I believe the Trust will insist
that the trademark on IANA be handled according to the agreements the
Trust has with various parties (including the IETF, note).

Full disclosure: until March or the IAB removes me (whichever comes
first), I'm IAB chair, which means I'm on the IAOC, which means I'm a
Trustee.  I'm offering my personal opinion, but it is informed by what
I understood IETF Trust counsel advised.  Because of a bad decision
when I was younger, I am not a lawyer, and this opinion is worth what
you paid for it :)

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan