[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Mueller, Milton L]

Seems like you ducked the argument, Alan.
No assumptions about your "mindset" are required to ask you to engage in a discussion of the question which entity is a more appropriate steward of the IANA marks and domain.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>; Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

Milton, you are free to assume anything you want about my mindset. 
That does not make it so.

Alan

At 05/08/2015 06:28 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:


>-----Original Message-----
>
> > If I were ICANN and about to hand over the TM, I would want to
> see something
> > stronger than just "hold", but perhaps to lawyers that is
> sufficient to imply will
> > police and defend.
>
>Alan, you seem to be starting from the assumption that ICANN is the 
>natural and appropriate steward of the marks, and IETF Trust must 
>somehow prove its worthiness of handling them. But I have not seen an 
>argument from you, or from anyone on this list, as to why ICANN is a 
>more appropriate steward compared to the IETF, which invented the term 
>and the functions of IANA and has referred to it thousands of times in 
>its RFCs going back decades.  I don't think there is any evidence that 
>the integrity of the IANA trademarks are important to ICANN or 
>essential to its core mission of policy development for names. I think 
>there is a very obvious argument as to why the concept and identity of 
>IANA are essential to the  mission and activities of the IETF. On the 
>merits, the burden of proof lies on ICANN to show why it should be 
>holding the marks at all. At the very least, let's apply the same 
>standard to ICANN that we are applying to the IETF Trust.
>
>--MM