[CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

[Seun Ojedeji]

I believe this is fair and clear enough.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 2 Jul 2015 23:32, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

> 2 July 2015
>
>
>
> Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed
>
>
>
> In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with
> additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with
> regard to the IANA trademark.
>
>
>
> In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the
> CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the
> iana.org domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work.
> Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the
> owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN,
> the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the
> domain name and IANA trademark as needed.
>
>
>
> Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name
> registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the
> CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so  far as these may relate to how
> the use of the iana.org or IANA trademark impact the work of the other
> two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final
> Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder
> text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that
> does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as
> presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.
>
>
>
> In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with
> regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is
> specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals
> on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated
> position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two
> operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July.
>
> We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship
> at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a
> subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
>
> *Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* 19 June 2015 16:44
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and
> iana.org domain name
>
>
>
> Dear CWG,
>
> The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an
> exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA
> trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities
> under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was
> not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as
> subject to further negotiations.
>
> During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified
> as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community
> proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue
> to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs
> over several decades. The CWG�s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive
> license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued
> use of the term.
>
> Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA
> trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity
> independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the
> ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be
> made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported
> back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also
> indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to
> the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to
> support such a decision. [3]
>
> Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the
> iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is
> meant to extend to the domain name as well.
>
> The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination
> between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing
> its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and
> numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those
> communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and
> numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been
> identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed
> resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.
>
> Thank you,
> Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG
>
>
> [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132
>
> [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA
> trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet
> Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services
> and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an
> organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which
> will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition
> should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the
> preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the
> IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA
> Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used
> in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.
> From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be
> an acceptable candidate for this role.
>
> The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust
> will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of
> the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the
> preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree
> to these expectations as part of the transition."
>
> [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html
>
> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150703/0a72bf77/attachment-0001.html>