[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Mueller, Milton L]

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.

MM: So your initial claim that the only beneficiary of IETF Trust is the IETF was an exaggeration. Why then did you make it?

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.

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.

if the IETF Trust takes over the INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY and IANA trademark d the trademarks transferred to the IETF Trust, the IETF Trust becomes the INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY. The

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.

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.

MM: ICANN’s PTI is _supposed_ 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150813/4a254e1e/attachment.html>