[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Mueller, Milton L]

David:

> -----Original Message-----
> >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.

ICANN was the IANA Functions Operator by virtue of a contract with the NTIA. A key aspect of the transition is that the community wanted to retain the ability to change IFOs. (I hope you are not, as an ICANN exec, trying to deny or reverse this basic principle of separability which has been accepted by all 3 communities.) As a logical consequence of separability, ICANN's status as IFO is contingent upon acceptable performance. Thus, it cannot own the IANA-related IPR; it must receive them and use them only as long as it it the designated IFO.

> 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.

You've missed the point. Yes, ICANN needs to _use_ the trademarks as long as it is the designated IFO. But it does not need to own them, and as long as its status as IFO is contingent, it must not own them. It must be awarded the right to use them, just as it must be designated the IANA functions operator by the 3 communities.