[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[David Conrad]

Milton,

>But I have not seen an argument from you, or from anyone on this list, as
>to why ICANN is a more appropriate steward compared to the IETF, which
>invented the term and the functions of IANA and has referred to it
>thousands of times in its RFCs going back decades.

ICANN is the IANA Functions Operator and provides IANA-related services to
all three operational communities, not just the IETF.

>I don't think there is any evidence that the integrity of the IANA
>trademarks are important to ICANN or essential to its core mission of
>policy development for names.

According to ICANN's bylaws, ICANN's mission is:

"Section 1. MISSION

The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and
secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In
particular, ICANN:

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique
identifiers for the Internet, which are
 a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
 b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS")
numbers; and
 c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server
system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to
these technical functions."

The IANA Functions are the means by which #1 is done. In as much as the
integrity of the IANA trademarks are necessary to ensure the IANA
functions are able to be performed, it would be essential that the IANA
Functions Operator is able to use the trademarks.

>I think there is a very obvious argument as to why the concept and
>identity of IANA are essential to the  mission and activities of the
>IETF. 

Quoting from the IANAPLAN proposal from the IETF:

"Over the course of the development of the document, several
   suggestions were raised that did not enjoy sufficient support to be
   included.  Two general areas of suggestion that generated much
   discussion were

o  A suggestion for a stronger statement over what terms the IAOC
      should negotiate.


o  A suggestion that "iana.org" and other associated marks be
      transferred to the IETF trust.


At the end of the working group process, although there was not
   unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs concluded
   that rough consensus existed in the working group."


I'm yet again confused.  If the IETF itself decided there was not
sufficient support for the transfer of the IPR to the IETF trust, why do
you believe it appropriate to argue this within the CWG?

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150805/389f3483/smime-0001.p7s>