<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out
twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO.
And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record
a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant,
you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN
was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are
in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing
something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency
with the general principles we agreed on. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"> john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Poole<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:<br>
<br>
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):<br>
<br>
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)—<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en</a><br>
which states in 2.1:<br>
<br>
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.<br>
<br>
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:<br>
<br>
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service
mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and<br>
<br>
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark
and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."<br>
<br>
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000)
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet
system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."<br>
<br>
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:<br>
<br>
RFC 1060 --March 1990:<br>
<br>
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.<br>
<br>
Joyce K. Reynolds<br>
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority<br>
USC - Information Sciences Institute<br>
4676 Admiralty Way<br>
Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”<br>
<br>
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned
by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN <a href="http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386">
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386</a><br>
<br>
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.<br>
<br>
Domain name <a href="http://iana.org">iana.org</a> has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.<br>
<br>
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
John Poole<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg, not quite. <br>
<br>
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently
<a href="http://iana.org" target="_blank">iana.org</a> has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use
the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
<br>
<br>
But the problems will be there regardless of where the <a href="http://iana.org" target="_blank">
iana.org</a> name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.<br>
<br>
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using
<a href="http://iana.org" target="_blank">iana.org</a>, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Alan,<br>
<br>
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent
license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.<br>
<br>
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a> > wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and
privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN
has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>