<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have made this suggestion recently, and still support it. However, we will first need to gather our facts (and not just the facts that tend to support a particular position), without which any independent counsel will be (literally) clueless.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi<br>
<br>
I agree with that proposal.<br>
<br>
We can also look at what the other operational communities said:<br>
<br>
- one mentions putting in a trust, perhaps like the ietf trust<br>
- one mentions that, speaking for the IETF trust, they are are ready to<br>
take it.<br>
<br>
As I said, I want it held for use by PTI and any future possible IFOs.<br>
If it is not possible for it to be held by the PTI with the stipulation<br>
that it is transferred to any future IFO, then perhaps it can be put in<br>
a trust, not the IETF trust, but a trust that preserves if for future<br>
IFOs and leaves it accessible to all of the operational communities.<br>
<br>
I am sure that all the legal brain power we have behind this transition<br>
could work out a simple solution.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
On 22-Jun-15 10:55, James Gannon wrote:<br>
> In an attempt to find a common ground, I would like to make a<br>
> suggestion that we receive independent legal advice external to the<br>
> contributions of the lawyers in this group (Whom I hold in great<br>
> esteem but none of us here can be impartial) to provide us with a<br>
> list of possible homes and processes for the IANA marks. That way we<br>
> can work from a position of fact and knowledge and we will be making<br>
> our judgements based on substance and consensus on what the best home<br>
> for the marks are as opposed to debating the legal viability of the<br>
> models.<br>
><br>
><br>
> -James<br>
><br>
> From: <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller<br>
<span class="">> Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03<br>
> To: Greg Shatan<br>
</span>> Cc: "<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>", "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>>"<br>
<span class="">> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark<br>
> and <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> domain name<br>
><br>
> I mean neutral with respect to a specific IFO. I don’t mean neutral<br>
> wrt the identity of the IANA.<br>
><br>
> This theoretical debate is really pointless and begs the question:<br>
> what is accomplished by keeping it in ICANN? We already know what is<br>
> impeded (separability)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM<br>
> *To:* Milton L Mueller<br>
> *Cc:* <a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark<br>
<div><div class="h5">> and <a href="http://iana.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">iana.org</a> domain name<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> A neutral repository _might_ be appropriate for copyrights or patents;<br>
> it's not appropriate for a trademark, which by definition is not<br>
> "neutral." It represents the entity from which the services are<br>
> provided. Even when used by a licensee, the owner/licensor is<br>
> considered to be the origin of the licensee's goods and services (thus<br>
> the requirement of active approval and quality control of a licensee's<br>
> processes and output, as well as the use of their mark).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I'll stick with my earlier suggestion that a group should collaborate<br>
> to develop a common understanding of the facts, rather than cite<br>
> certain facts for the purpose of advocacy. I'd also like to identify<br>
> issues and work together to resolve them, rather than try work through<br>
> this solely in advocacy mode.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> It was in that spirit that I stated that we do not know whether the<br>
> IETF Trust has the ability to take on the duties of a trademark<br>
> owner. I did not assert that they lacked that capacity, only that it<br>
> is an unknown. That said, we cannot rely on an unknown. (I would<br>
> also note that the IETF Trust is not the IETF; rather it is a trust<br>
> set up for the benefit of the IETF. To the extent that the Trust is<br>
> not seen as a legal entity, the trustees (not IETF) would be seen as<br>
> the owner of the trust's assets.)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I think I've already responded to the other point here (recognizing<br>
> that the email was a response to Avri), so I'll stop here.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a><br>
</div></div><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> ><br>
> > Milton, since you are insisting so much from a Names perspective<br>
> that we<br>
> > agree to transfer this from ICANN to the IETT Trust, I would like to<br>
> > understand what advantage you see for the Names commuity in this<br>
> from<br>
> > the CWG perspective. I understand why you might take the<br>
> position you do<br>
><br>
> That's a fair request and a fairly easy one to answer. In two<br>
> words the answer is 'enhanced separability.' I've said this before<br>
> so perhaps you need a better explanation.<br>
><br>
> The mixture of policy making and implementation functions within<br>
> one names-centric organization (ICANN) has been recognized as<br>
> problematic. One of the key principles underlying the current<br>
> reforms is that the IFO for names should be separate from the<br>
> policy maker, and further that the current IFO should not have a<br>
> permanent monopoly. We should be able to switch to a new names IFO<br>
> if justified. And numbers and protocols already have this<br>
> arrangement. If you want the capacity to switch, then the current<br>
> IFO cannot control or own the IPR associated with IANA; they are<br>
> users of the IPR not its owners. That, I suggest, is the correct<br>
> model for the names community.<br>
><br>
> If we want to consistently implement the basic model that the<br>
> Internet community as a whole recognizes as proper (RFC 7500) we<br>
> cannot have the names-related policy making entity - which is also<br>
> an IFO for all 3 communities at the moment - hold the trademarks<br>
> that need to be used by all three communities and which may need<br>
> to be used by different IFOs. The IETF trust is a neutral<br>
> repository for this IPR that allows the rights to be assigned to<br>
> any IFO as needed.<br>
><br>
> > Also I think you misinterpret the IANAPLAN position. They say<br>
> they are<br>
> > willing. They do not request the move.<br>
><br>
> 'Willingness' means that their proposal is compatible with the<br>
> numbers proposal. CWG's is not. There's no way around the fact<br>
> that CWG names has worked without regard to what the other two<br>
> communities proposed, and that its proposal is out of step. That<br>
> by itself does not mean it's wrong, but it does suggest that we<br>
> _first_ need to think of changing what randomly made its way into<br>
> our proposal rather than forcing two other communities to change.<br>
> No one has advanced a good reason why a names community entity<br>
> should control it all. The idea that IETF Trust cannot defend or<br>
> monitor the trademark is a mere assertion for which there is no<br>
> concrete evidence, and flies in the face of the fact that the<br>
> source and origin of the IANA registries is the IETF, not ICANN.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</div></div>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a> <mailto:<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>
<span class="im HOEnZb">><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><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>
<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>