[CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
bmanning at karoshi.com
Sun Jun 21 04:05:03 UTC 2015
before there existed the idea of “reserved lists”, there were registrations for iana in .org, .net, and .com.
in part because there was serious confusion with these folks: ‘Islamic Assembly of North America’
bmanning at karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
On 20June2015Saturday, at 16:03, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> The iana.org registration dates back to 1996. A spot check confirms that "iana" is available in certain other delegations. (I guess the string was never put on the reserved list.) Strings with iana plus other characters were also available.
> It's an issue in the sense that third parties could acquire the string in other TLDs, which could be used for various purposes (including fan sites, I guess). This could lead to enforcement concerns (a discussion of which is not necessary for current purposes). It should not raise operational issues (unless a third party engaged in some unsavory behavior).
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:13 PM, manning <bmanning at karoshi.com> wrote:
> A couple of thoughts. I don;t think that someone “insisting” they have an active voice has always been a precondition for being selected.
> Second, there is or was a choice made about two decades ago (looking backwards) to reserve the string iana.[com,net,org].
> I am not at all sure that the string “iana” is protected in _ALL_ other delegations in the DNS. Or even could be. Is that going to be an
> bmanning at karoshi.com
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> On 20June2015Saturday, at 10:47, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > Greg:
> > Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member.
> > Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
> > I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
> > I was interested in this part of your response:
> > I also think we as a community need to decide what our desired outcome would be (whatever the facts are, and whatever the law may be (as long we recognize that a trademark identifies where the goods and services come from)).
> > MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
> > I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
> > MM: I would insist on being on this team.
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
More information about the CWG-Stewardship