<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The Purpose of the Trust is "the advancement of education and public interest by acquiring, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used
in connection with the Internet standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology." Although this goes beyond benefiting the IETF, this does not support the statement
in D either. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: So your initial claim that the only beneficiary of IETF Trust is the IETF was an exaggeration. Why then did you make it?</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">GS: Milton, you are incorrect. My statement that the sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF is absolutely accurate; just read the Trust Agreement. The Purpose of a trust is a separate concept from the Beneficiary of a trust. The Beneficiary is the entity ultimately entitled to receive the assets or profits of the trust; in essence, the Beneficiary is owner of the trust's assets, the trust is just holding those assets "in trust" for that Beneficiary. The purpose of a trust indicates how the trust assets may be put to use on an ongoing basis while such assets are held by the trust, those that "benefit" from the exercise of these purposes are not in any way Beneficiaries of the trust -- that is a very specific role. It's probably clearer not to use any variation of the word "benefit" when referring to those who are touched by the exercise of the trust's purpose; that would avoid the confusion inherent in your statement above.</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">It should also be noted that all the Trustees of the IETF Trust are members of the IETF Admin Committee. As such, it's clear that this is an IETF-centric trust, which is not consistent with
owning an asset that is used in connection with the needs of all three communities.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><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></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">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.</div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">if the IETF Trust takes over the INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY and IANA trademark d the trademarks transferred to the IETF Trust,
<b>the IETF Trust becomes the INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY</b>. The <span style="color:#1f497d">
<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><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></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">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, but that we need to conduct our own analysis of the potential outcomes. 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. This could all be taken care of in contracts and in the ICANN Bylaws, to assure that it would in fact take place. Concerns about separability of the IANA trademarks and domain names is highly exaggerated by those with permanent distrust of ICANN. And, as has been pointed out, the IFO operations could still be separated from ICANN even in the highly unlikely scenario where ICANN refused to yield the IANA trademarks and domain names in spite of clear obligations to do so. As for "accountability," there's no reason why ICANN owning the IANA brand while it operates as the IANA would have any impact on accountability (unless you are comparing that scenario to the oversight and control that the IETF Trust must exercise if it were the brandowner). </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">IETF Trust is ultimately responsible for monitoring and assuring the quality of the work product and services of any licensee using the brand (currently ICANN). ICANN is then a mere licensee,
providing services by permission of the IETF Trust under the IANA brand, which is an IETF Trust brand (just like Vaseline is a Unilever brand). By no means is ICANN the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority anymore.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: ICANN’s PTI is _<i>supposed</i>_ to be a “mere” contractor, providing services by permission of… the names community - NOT the IETF Trust. Your continued
distortion of this issue is not helpful. You can’t explain how to reconcile ICANN ownership of the marks with separability of IFOs, and you can’t explain why a names-dominated entity should hold the marks for all three communities. Please engage with the real
issues.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">GS: There's no distortion here. The services may be provided by PTI by permission of the names 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. And the IETF Trust, like any brandowner, becomes the entity from which those services are deemed to come from, even if the licensee and not the licensor is the one physically providing the services. Pretending that this is not the way that trademarks and trademark licenses work distorts the issues and is not helpful. As noted previously, in order to resolve issues, one must first acknowledge issues.</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">Finally, the separability of IFOs is quite easy to reconcile with ICANN's continued ownership of the marks. It's been stated above, but again: ICANN must be obligated, both by contract and by its bylaws, to grant a license to any new IFO chosen by a single community, and to transfer the marks and domains to any new IFO chosen by all of the communities. If ICANN breached its contracts and flouted its bylaws, the CCWG has provided a whole panoply of powers to hold ICANN to account and to force ICANN to comply (even if it means spilling the Board to do so). Terming ICANN a "names-dominated entity" merely prejudices the entire analysis -- ICANN was created to serve as the IANA Operator for all 3 communities and this is a core function of ICANN. The role of the ASO and ICANN's role in numbers should not be denigrated either. The fact that the names crowd and its issues are noisy and numerous does not per se make ICANN a "names-dominated entity". In a perfect world, we might have a names community entity that was completely separate from ICANN-as-the-IANA; we don't have that, but we do have functional (and will have structural) separation, and that should be more than sufficient.</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">It's also a mischaracterization to say that ICANN (or the IETF Trust, for that matter) "holds the marks for all three communities." Marks don't get "held." Marks are identifiers. (Patents and copyrights may be held in the passive or neutral sense, but that is because patents and copyrights serve different functions.) In this case, the marks identify the entity that provides the IANA services to the three communities. If ICANN owns the marks, that identifies ICANN as the provider of "IANA-brand" services. If the IETF Trust owns the marks, that identifies the IETF Trust as the provider of "IANA-brand" services. The communities themselves do not "use" the marks, nor are the communities identified as the providers of "IANA-brand" services. As far as trademarks are concerned, these are the real issues.</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><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>