<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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"><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" style="margin-left:.15in"><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 [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: All three communities are based on registries grounded in IETF standards. There is no more appropriate
place for the 3 communities’ IANA requirements to converge than at IETF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">GS: The fact that IETF sets standards that are then used by two operational communities does not in any way qualify the IETF or its Trust
as a sole owner of an asset used to refer to services provided to all three communities by the provider of those services.</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><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">MM: Incorrect. The identity of the IANA, as you have been informed several times now, resides in IETF RFCs. The “three communities” to which you refer are organized
around registries that implement IETF standards. The “services” to which you refer are merely outsourced secretarial functions which keep those registries consistent. While each community gets to pick its clerical provider of those functions, the source and
origin of the IANA is still the IETF. <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>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: So since you want ICANN to hold the mark this means that you want ICANN to “become the INTERNET
ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY? Permanently…? No separability, no accountability.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">GS: That completely mischaracterizes my position, or is at least way out of date. Just because you remain a committed advocate for the
CRISP solution does not mean that I am your antithesis. My position since Buenos Aires (if not slightly before) is that I have an open mind<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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">MM: I see no evidence of this. I see a very firm commitment to ICANN retaining the IPR. See below.<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-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">but that we need to conduct our own analysis of the potential outcomes</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">. If ICANN
retains ownership of the IANA and INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY trademark, thee is no reason that it would be permanent, nor have I ever said so at any time. If all 3 communities chose a new IFO, putting ICANN out of the "IANA business," it would be
entirely appropriate for the new IFO, as the new IANA, to be assigned the trademarks as well.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">This could all be taken care of in contracts and in the ICANN Bylaws, to assure that it would in fact take place.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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">MM: I have a bit of experience, 30 years to be exact, in telecommunications regulation and have observed efforts to use regulations, contracts, etc. to make an
incumbent monopoly treat competitors in a nondiscriminatory fashion and allow customers to switch to new providers without throwing up obstacles. The method you describe never works. Never. The incumbent has so much discretion, so much inertia on its side,
and so much advance knowledge of the process. The only thing that has ever really worked cleanly is structural separation. This isn’t about “permanent mistrust of ICANN” per se, it’s about knowing something about economics, regulation, switching costs, and
basic economic incentives. <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">And you still have never explained why you are so mistrustful of an IETF Trust when it has zero incentives and zero benefits to be gained by messing with the
trademarks. A person with an open mind wouldn’t use such a double standard. <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>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">GS: There's no distortion here. The services may be provided by PTI by permission of the names
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">community, but PTI's ability to use IANA and INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY as its trademarks and trade names comes by permission (or more accurately,
license) from the IETF Trust, if the IETF Trust becomes the brandowner. This license, like any trademark license, must contain quality control provisions which put the IETF Trust in an oversight and control position over PTI. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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">MM: I think you are distorting this, partly based on your understanding of how commercially motivated firms administer trademarks, partly because you really are
committed to ICANN retaining the marks. The IETF Trust would administer the marks not to impose its service standards on PTI but only to ensure that the marks are separate from the IFO and licensed to any IFO duly designated by each operational community.
You can’t tell me that good TM lawyers can’t figure out a way to confine IETF Trust to that role.
<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">And if you can’t, you will have a very hard time convincing people of your second point, which is that ICANN’s bylaws and contracts can be magically written to
erase its conflict of interest in transferring the marks to a new operator. <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">You have consistently failed to escape this basic contradiction in your position. If you can make ICANN a nondiscriminatory holder of the marks who willingly
licenses them to its competitors, or whoever the communities designate as their IFO, why can’t you do the same for IETF Trust? And doesn’t it make more sense for IETF, which has no conflict of interest, to be in that role than ICANN? And isn’t that why CRISP
team proposed it to begin with?<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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>