[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Mueller, Milton L]

I don’t understand this reasoning, we are happy with ICANN being the steward of the IANA functions
Under the CWG proposal the PTI will be the IFO and ICANN will be the IANA steward.


MM: No. You have confused the names community with the entire IANA functions issue. ICANN (as a community, not as a corporation), is considered the steward of the NAMES-related IANA functions. Which means only that we use ICANN-based representative organs and processes to determine who operates names IANA. But the IETF is the “steward” that determines who provides the protocols-related IANA functions and the RIRs are the steward of the numbers-related functions.

It follows from this that the trademark and domain for IANA apply to ALL these functions, and as I have said repeatedly if ICANN’s status as IFO for ANY of these communities is contingent upon decisions of those communities, you cannot give it ownership of the trademarks and domain. You let it USE the domains and marks. Ownership must reside elsewhere.


-James


On 6 Aug 2015, at 15:35, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU>> wrote:

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150806/603343f3/attachment-0001.html>