<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Milton,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On the quality control point, it's not possible to limit (or essentially, eliminate) quality control to the extent you state, but it is possible to constrain it significantly. In this case I would suggest we explore a combination of (a) minimizing the quality control obligations as much as legally possible, (b) involving the OCs in quality control (e.g., by delegating certain quality control responsibilities to the OCs), and (c) constraining the licensor's ability to call a default and seek to terminate the license. The quality control "issue" would have been an issue with ICANN licensing the mark to third parties post-separation, as well. It may also be an issue now (albeit to a lesser extent) in the proposed license between ICANN and PTI. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On your last point, after further thought, I tend to agree. "Doing something to" the IETF Trust is probably an overly aggressive way to phrase things. I've been thinking of a range of options, some of which would involve little or no change to the IETF Trust itself (and some of which do, or don't involve the IETF Trust at all). But I think it makes sense to understand the range of options and then we can make decisions about these options. More to follow.</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 Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:44 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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14f41b2f21df9dc0__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><span class="">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:5.4pt"><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:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</span><div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Andrew Sullivan a little while ago. Many good and important things may reside in IETF RFCs, but the "identity of the IANA" is not one of them. That is not consistent with what trademarks
stand for, or what trademark "source" means. A brand identity is associated with the entity that is responsible for carrying out a service<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: This is where you go off the track, in my opinion. “The IANA” as the IETF defines it is not a “service.” It is an authoritative role regarding protocol compatibility
that is defined in the RFC I and others referenced. To quote: <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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1f4e79;background:white">To insure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations
in different implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RFC 2434)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f4e79"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">The IETF is the source of that role and of the protocols that require registries. The IANA Functions operator (IFO) is a service. It is semantically easy to confuse
“The IANA’ with “The IANA Functions Provider” and people have often unwittingly used them interchangeably, but they are distinct and the distinction is pretty important in the current context.
<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>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For a copyright owner, it would make good commercial sense, since a bad cover version or movie would have a negative effect on value, but there's no legal requirement. For a patent owner,
there's no overriding reason to do so. In contrast, quality control is the bedrock of trademark licensing. Without adequate quality control (and policing and enforcement) in contract and in fact, the trademark asset itself will become diluted and ultimately
abandoned. So, any trademark owner, including the IETF Trust, must impose quality control standards over its licensees. It cannot be a passive
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">licensee.<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: I look forward to the email you propose to write below. The key question is: is it possible, or is it not, for the sum and substance of the IETF Trust’s
“quality control” to be <i>we will license the TM to whoever each operational community designates to be their IFO</i>? If it is not possible for IETF Trust to do this, how is it possible for ICANN (the incumbent IFO) to do it? And if it is possible, why
not let’s figure out the best way to do it. <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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">By the way that constraint on “quality control” – and only that – is what I mean by “making the IETF Trust accountable.” Accountability does not mean complex
new structures that allow anyone in the world claiming to be an internet user to select IETF officers, or to review and approve IETF standards, nor does it mean new corporatist representational structures arbitrarily apportioning slots among different regions,
operational communities, etc. etc. <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>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Given the ICANN Board's recent announcement, there's really no reason to continue discussing ICANN retaining the marks
<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: Agreed. So, let’s not.<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>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">What makes sense at this point is to discuss what would need to be done to the IETF Trust<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: I really don’t like that phrasing. ;-0 I don’t think we need to “do something to” the IETF Trust per se; we need to condition the transfer of the marks to
it in a way that ensures that it respects the choices of the OCs as to who they want their IFO to be. <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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>