<p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think this is a good summary on IANA trademark that could be interest. Please pay attention to the last paragraph.</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">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "John C Klensin" <<a href="mailto:john-ietf@jck.com">john-ietf@jck.com</a>><br>Date: 22 Jun 2015 19:21<br>Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and <a href="http://iana.org">iana.org</a> domain name<br>To: "Mwendwa Kivuva" <<a href="mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com">Kivuva@transworldafrica.com</a>><br>Cc: <<a href="mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org">ianaplan@ietf.org</a>><br><br type="attribution"><br>
<br>
--On Monday, June 22, 2015 16:54 -0300 Mwendwa Kivuva<br>
<<a href="mailto:Kivuva@transworldafrica.com">Kivuva@transworldafrica.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>...<br>
> Today I asked to Greg Shetan, Chair Intellectual Property<br>
> Community at ICANN on what he thought on the request to<br>
> transfer the Intellectual Propert out of ICANN. His view was<br>
> we should look at trademark law and take the direction that<br>
> works well for all parties. His Personal view was the IANA<br>
> Function Operator should hold these trademarks. I hope I have<br>
> not misquoted him.<br>
<br>
Hi. I think this illustrates the principle that the answer to<br>
questions often depends on exactly what question one asks.<br>
Let's review how we got here and please pass this note onto Mr.<br>
Shatan.<br>
<br>
Today, the IANA Function Operator is ICANN so, by the advice<br>
above, the right party has the trademarks. However, various<br>
parts of the community have gotten concerned that ICANN might<br>
use the ownership of the trademarks to prevent, or set<br>
conditions on, all or part of the IANA Function from being<br>
turned over to some separate operator. As I understand it, the<br>
NTIA, under the current contract, would not allow the trademark<br>
or domain name the IANA Function to be transferred to a separate<br>
operator without the trademarks, domain names, and,<br>
incidentally, the contents of various registries going along<br>
with it.<br>
<br>
So, unless other arrangements can be found that make sure that<br>
any transfer of the IANA function occur with the full support of<br>
the outgoing incumbent and take any IPR, including the trademark<br>
and domain name with it as part of the deal (and assuming the<br>
trademark, etc., really are important), "the name should be held<br>
by the IANA Function Operator" could turn out to be a guarantee<br>
that an incumbent IANA Function Operator could hold onto that<br>
role as long as it liked, dictating whatever conditions it liked.<br>
<br>
The following summary is crude, but, AFAICT, the position of the<br>
communities so far is:<br>
<br>
IETF: At least for us, the trademark and domain name are not<br>
nearly as important as some parties believe. Beyond that, ICANN<br>
has been well-behaved in this particular area, we really don't<br>
believe that is likely to change (implying that, should there<br>
need to be a change in the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN would<br>
cooperate in transferring the names rather than trying to dig in<br>
and hold onto them as a negotiating point even though that would<br>
cause significant inconvenience and perhaps damage to Internet<br>
security and stability), and putting a lot of energy into this<br>
issue isn't worth it.<br>
<br>
The IETF does, however, have a handy structure that holds<br>
various intellectual property assets in trust for the broad<br>
Internet community. That structure has a very good track record<br>
and, if the other communities involved see a need to transfer<br>
the trademarks and domain names out of ICANN (presumably because<br>
of lack of trust in ICANN future good behavior), we would be<br>
willing to hold those assets too.<br>
<br>
<br>
RIRs: apparently see somewhat more risk than the IETF does<br>
(perhaps because the IETF believes it is in a better position to<br>
just walk away if things got really bad) and would prefer to see<br>
the trademark and domain names transferred to the IETF Trust to<br>
administer on behalf of the broader community.<br>
<br>
CWG: Sees creating PTI, transferring the domain name and<br>
trademarks to it, for exclusive use, and setting up a detailed<br>
set of licensing arrangements that best solution to the problem.<br>
If that mischaracterizes the position, please explain.<br>
<br>
Otherwise (personal option only, but one informed by working<br>
with IANA and on IANA policies long before anyone dreamed of<br>
ICANN and having been somewhat involved with the IANA transition<br>
to ICANN and the first few rounds of this discussion):<br>
<br>
PTI is an interesting idea. It it were the IANA Function<br>
Operator, the above answer to your question suggests that it<br>
should hold the trademarks, etc. However, as long as it is<br>
ICANN-controlled, its holding the trademarks does not, by<br>
itself, provide any protection against the trademarks being used<br>
as leverage to prevent moving the function away from ICANN (and<br>
its subsidiaries and affiliates) entirely. So, ignoring any<br>
other issues associated with PTI, if the concern is that the<br>
trademarks not be used to restrict either the reasonable<br>
behavior of the IANA "customers" or the ability to remove the<br>
IANA function entirely from ICANN's scope and assign it, intact<br>
and without a great deal of strife, to some other entity, the<br>
PTI model just doesn't help.<br>
<br>
Two additional comments:<br>
<br>
One of the things I understood Larry Strickling to say yesterday<br>
afternoon is that the focus of the transition effort should be<br>
on transition requirements and that it would probably be good if<br>
various parts of the community avoiding using "transition" as an<br>
excuse to engage in overall ICANN reform and reorganization. I<br>
can see several motivations for PTI if we were trying, again, to<br>
reform and reorganize ICANN, but, if that it not the goal, then<br>
the odds of success in getting a transition plan completed and<br>
approved seem to me to be much higher if we keep this simple<br>
rather than trying to create new organization elements and then<br>
trying to sort of the relationships between them and everyone/<br>
everything else. Again, just my opinion, but....<br>
<br>
Also, with no disrespect to anyone involved, if you came to<br>
people who were spending a very large fraction of their lives on<br>
IETF protocol work and asked "is Internet protocol work<br>
important?", it is unlikely that you would get many negative<br>
answers. Asking someone involved as staff or a Board or<br>
Advisory Committee member whether a well-managed and fairly<br>
allocated Internet address space is important would also be<br>
unlikely to get a negative answer. Similarly, if I asked an<br>
actively practicing Intellectual Property lawyer if trademarks<br>
are important, I would certainly expect a "yes" answer and be<br>
surprised if I got anything else. That doesn't make any of<br>
those "yes, it is important" answers wrong -- they are probably<br>
correct -- it just makes the answers sufficiently close to<br>
obvious to make the questions barely worth asking.<br>
<br>
best,<br>
john<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ianaplan mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org">Ianaplan@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan</a><br>
</div>