[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jun 12 05:59:42 UTC 2015
I agree strongly with just about everything you've said, and that's the
approach I prefer to take going forward.
As for your last point regarding whether the license is exclusive or
non-exclusive -- I think that what is necessary here is further analysis of
the nature and type of use that each community (and others) make of the
term IANA. Not every use of a trademark requires a license (I don't need a
license from Nike to wear their athletic gear) but a fact-specific analysis
needs to be done to determine whether and what kind of license is needed.
In the end, the goal is to allow PTI and each of the other communities the
appropriate latitude to use the mark and domains while still staying within
the bounds of trademark law and protecting the strength and value of the
mark. I look forward to helping with that analysis.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> First, I support the way forward as concluded by the chairs. It is
> for the CWG work to move to the next step.
> Anyway, I would like to emphasise that we are in this together. The
> three communities need to work together to have an acceptable solution
> for all. I’m happy to help on this issue as needed, as I am sure are
> And even the solution needs to be seen as not one entity controlling the
> but a shared arrangement where all of us feel comfortable that we have
> the necessary ability to conduct our business.
> We have provided an offer from the IETF Trust to help if needed*. We
> are an existing entity with a stable and known history, and willingness
> to support the communities with that shared arrangement.
> Finally, I think it is important that the current language be changed as
> we move forward from the “initial draft language” to something more
> realistic. It is important to realise that all of us in the different
> use the terms, for instance, in 3351 IETF RFCs dating back three decades.
> It is very important that PTI gets the rights it needs, but on quick look,
> the “exclusive license” text does not seem to take into account the
> broader view of use of the domains and terms outside PTI.
> *) We do not require an arrangement, but would be happy to participate
> in one. And obviously, we do not want to see an arrangement that
> would cause problems for us or the other communities.
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship