<p dir="ltr">Come to think of it, ain't we supposed to be transitioning NTIA stewardship role, and does NTIA have the trademark in it's custody at the moment? isn't the trademark with ICANN at present and would we say it would have barred NTIA from awarding the contract to another entity if it wants to? I don't think so.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think we may be touching/moving/changing too much in this transition that makes me wonder what our individual goal of this transition is.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For me it's to continue to have a strong ICANN as the IFO, looks like that may not be the case for some. </p>
<p dir="ltr">With the way things are going, I fear that ICANN community would drift further away from consensus/commonness approach and enter into a voting/more political setup that would only accommodate community members with the fitness (in terms of access to resources).</p>
<p dir="ltr">At the moment it's one direction arrow towards ICANN board, it seem the arrow will be multiple directions and across communities post transition. Again the most fitted community (in terms of access to resources) would suffice.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I say this with huge sense of responsibility!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 Jun 2015 21:46, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As one who honestly doesn’t have an opinion as to where the mark should reside and definitely one who doesn’t have the expertise in trademark law or the technical
community to properly evaluate the options, I suggest that we tone down the discussion a bit and do something like the following:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Identify the requirements that any entity holding the trademark must meet.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Identify all other factors that should be considered in considering where the trademark should reside.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">List the options for possible holders of the trademark.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Compare the list in 3 to the results of 1 & 2 to narrow down the list of options as much as possible.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Arrange a joint meeting of representatives from the three communities to collaborate on a solution that all can support.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Chuck<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan; John Poole<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14de45fb84c9d832__MailEndCompose"></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt">
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Greg Shatan [<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and
the historical origins of both.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">MM: This is completely wrong. I am reminded of the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You seem eager to seize on bits of incomplete
evidence to support a conclusion that you have already arrived at and cling to despite growing mounds of evidence to the contrary.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">No one has ever said that IETF “is” the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434" target="_blank">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434</a> for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to <u></u><u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">“</span>The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters<u></u><u></u></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"">only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs…”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f4e79">In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA
is therefore an extension of IETF’s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. It is therefore appropriate for the IETF trust to own IANA-related marks and domains, and furthermore the IETF is already
committed to keeping the registries in the public domain. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f4e79"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>