<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to respond to a couple points above:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">It's a matter of considerable concern that other<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly,<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">their use of the </span><a href="http://iana.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">iana.org</a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"> registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that. </span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">If</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">ICANN retains control of the trademark and domain name, that is essentially the same situation we have today. The only difference is the license between ICANN and PTI. There should be no need for the other community's uses of IANA or <a href="http://www.iana.org">www.iana.org</a> to be "constrained." The license to PTI could be non-exclusive, rather than exclusive, to account for these other uses. So, this should be a matter of no concern, not a matter of "considerable concern." The underlying concept here is to change as little as possible; if we're changing too much, that should be easy to fix. As noted above, it likely would be better to enter into licenses with the other communities rather than to continue the current casual set-up (but that requires some discussion and analysis to determine the best options open to us). As long as we anticipate separation (which clearly will do) that should not be tricky to deal with.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">the domain name </span><a href="http://iana.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">iana.org</a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"> and the trademark on IANA separately, given<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">legal-technical) implications with them.</span></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Trademark-based domain names should be owned by the trademark owner. There are nuances and exceptions (e.g., as part of a trademark license for the mark ACME for shoes, one might allow the licensee to register and use the domain <a href="http://acmeshoes.com">acmeshoes.com</a>, but you would almost certainly not let them own <a href="http://acme.com">acme.com</a>), but that's the basic rule. So ownership cannot be considered separately. Record ownership aside, there is plenty of flexibility in dealing with the operational aspects of the website(s) found at the domain, including the potential use of subdomains (as I mentioned earlier).</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others)<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to<br></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">be destabilising. I'm sure none of us wants that.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I'm not quite sure what's being said here -- that having ICANN continue to own the mark increases the likelihood of separation, or increases the difficulty of separation should that be desired by any of the communities? If it's the first, I don't see why that would be the case. If it's the second, it's only a marginal increase in difficulty in that the trademark license agreements would need a clause stating that ICANN will grant an irrevocable worldwide royalty-free license to the new operator for that community.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Pulling back to the big picture, I think what is needed here is some rational, dispassionate, collegial and careful discussion of the facts, the law, the desires, the options, the opportunities and the obligations that are in play here to come up with a mutually acceptable common solution. It's unfortunate that the issue could not have been approached by all three communities at the same time, but that's water under the bridge. Sharing knowledge and viewpoints will get us much further than trying to prove one another wrong, and be more enjoyable to boot (unless you like that kind of stuff...).</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 01:37:37PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
><br>
> Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name<br>
> doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for<br>
> separation.<br>
<br>
[…]<br>
<br>
I've received some mail off-list about my remarks, and I want to make<br>
some things perfectly clear:<br>
<br>
1. I'm speaking, as always when I send from this address, as an<br>
individual and not as IAB chair. The IAB chair has no special power<br>
in the IETF, and in my experience as often as not the fact of being on<br>
the IAB is a reason others will believe something _other_ than what<br>
the IAB member says. I'm just one of the IETF participants, and I do<br>
not represent it or speak for its consensus. The IETF consensus is<br>
contained in the Internet Draft that emerged from the IANAPLAN working<br>
group. If I speak as IAB chair, I send the message from the<br>
<a href="mailto:iab-chair@iab.org">iab-chair@iab.org</a> address and sign the mail appropriately.<br>
<br>
2. Given what CRISP has proposed, it's quite plain that there's a<br>
conflict between the current ICANN/CWG proposal and the CRISP<br>
proposal. It's a matter of considerable concern that other<br>
communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would<br>
have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly,<br>
their use of the <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and<br>
I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that. To<br>
my everlasting regret (this is not in jest) I am not a lawyer, so I'm<br>
not competent to speak on how trademarks in particular ought to be or<br>
can be held. It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider<br>
the domain name <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> and the trademark on IANA separately, given<br>
that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and<br>
legal-technical) implications with them.<br>
<br>
It strikes me that, if it really isn't legally possible to move the<br>
ownership of the trademark, one possibility would be for ICANN to<br>
grant a permanent, worldwide, irrevocable (well, for as long as they<br>
hold the trademark, with appropriate succession language or however<br>
one does this) royalty-free license to the trademark to current<br>
communities that use the IANA. This would avoid problems of being<br>
unable to use the trademark. Presumably in the case of the NRO it<br>
would have to be sublicensable or something like that, so that new<br>
number organizations would not face a problem if they came into<br>
existence. I think this license would have to survive separation,<br>
which seems like it might be slightly tricky but presumably not<br>
impossible.<br>
<br>
I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others)<br>
considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary<br>
condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to<br>
be destabilising. I'm sure none of us wants that.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>