[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

[Gomes, Chuck]

As one who honestly doesn’t have an opinion as to where the mark should reside and definitely one who doesn’t have the expertise in trademark law or the technical community to properly evaluate the options, I suggest that we tone down the discussion a bit and do something like the following:

1.       Identify the requirements that any entity holding the trademark must meet.

2.       Identify all other factors that should be considered in considering where the trademark should reside.

3.       List the options for possible holders of the trademark.

4.       Compare the list in 3 to the results of 1 & 2 to narrow down the list of options as much as possible.

5.       Arrange a joint meeting of representatives from the three communities to collaborate on a solution that all can support.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:12 PM
To: Greg Shatan; John Poole
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5



From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA.  (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.)

MM: This is completely wrong. I am reminded of the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You seem eager to seize on bits of incomplete evidence to support a conclusion that you have already arrived at and cling to despite growing mounds of evidence to the contrary.


No one has ever said that IETF “is” the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to



“The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters
only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs…”

In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA is therefore an extension of IETF’s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. It is therefore appropriate for the IETF trust to own IANA-related marks and domains, and furthermore the IETF is already committed to keeping the registries in the public domain.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150611/b2349d9f/attachment-0001.html>