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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 17:16:52 UTC 2015 

Hi Greg,

Maybe not, I think the following might be:


   - ICANN as the global administrator of the internet unique identifier
   currently has trademark on IANA and registered owner of iana.org domain
   - These marks/domain are currently freely used by the 3 operational
   communities
   - We are looking for a way to ensure they remain freely used by the 3
   operational communities post-transition

Regards


On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> These are not correct. Will respond later.
>
>
> On Monday, June 22, 2015, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
>>   The facts should be simple.
>>
>>    - We have a set of marks currently awarded via the IANA contract to
>>    ICANN
>>    - These marks are used by 3 separate entities
>>    - We are looking for a new home for the marks
>>    - Marks need to be usable by all 3 entities
>>    - We are seeking advice as to our options for homing the marks
>>
>> -James
>>
>>   From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck"
>> Date: Monday 22 June 2015 11:35
>> To: Greg Shatan, Avri Doria
>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org"
>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and
>> iana.org domain name
>>
>>   Does anyone have a suggested approach for gathering the facts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 10:33 AM
>> *To:* Avri Doria
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark
>> and iana.org domain name
>>
>>
>>
>> I have made this suggestion recently, and still support it.  However, we
>> will first need to gather our facts (and not just the facts that tend to
>> support a particular position), without which any independent counsel will
>> be (literally) clueless.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I agree with that proposal.
>>
>> We can also look at what the other operational communities said:
>>
>> - one mentions putting in a trust, perhaps like the ietf trust
>> - one mentions that, speaking for the IETF trust, they are are ready to
>> take it.
>>
>> As I said, I want it held for use by PTI and any future possible IFOs.
>> If it is not possible for it to be held by the PTI with the stipulation
>> that it is transferred to any future IFO, then perhaps it can be put in
>> a trust, not the IETF trust, but a trust that preserves if for future
>> IFOs and leaves it accessible to all of the operational communities.
>>
>> I am sure that all the legal brain power we have behind this transition
>> could work out a simple solution.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 22-Jun-15 10:55, James Gannon wrote:
>> > In an attempt to find a common ground, I would like to make a
>> > suggestion that we receive independent legal advice external to the
>> > contributions of the lawyers in this group (Whom I hold in great
>> > esteem but none of us here can be impartial)  to provide us with a
>> > list of possible homes and processes for the IANA marks. That way we
>> > can work from a position of fact and knowledge and we will be making
>> > our judgements based on substance and consensus on what the best home
>> > for the marks are as opposed to debating the legal viability of the
>> > models.
>> >
>> >
>> > -James
>> >
>> > From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Milton L
>> Mueller
>> > Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03
>> > To: Greg Shatan
>> > Cc: "avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>", "cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>"
>> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark
>> > and iana.org domain name
>> >
>> > I mean neutral with respect to a specific IFO. I don’t mean neutral
>> > wrt the identity of the IANA.
>> >
>> > This theoretical debate is really pointless and begs the question:
>> > what is accomplished by keeping it in ICANN?  We already know what is
>> > impeded (separability)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM
>> > *To:* Milton L Mueller
>> > *Cc:* avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>> > <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark
>>
>> > and iana.org domain name
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A neutral repository _might_ be appropriate for copyrights or patents;
>> > it's not appropriate for a trademark, which by definition is not
>> > "neutral."  It represents the entity from which the services are
>> > provided.  Even when used by a licensee, the owner/licensor is
>> > considered to be the origin of the licensee's goods and services (thus
>> > the requirement of active approval and quality control of a licensee's
>> > processes and output, as well as the use of their mark).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll stick with my earlier suggestion that a group should collaborate
>> > to develop a common understanding of the facts, rather than cite
>> > certain facts for the purpose of advocacy.  I'd also like to identify
>> > issues and work together to resolve them, rather than try work through
>> > this solely in advocacy mode.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It was in that spirit that I stated that we do not know whether the
>> > IETF Trust has the ability to take on the duties of a trademark
>> > owner.  I did not assert that they lacked that capacity, only that it
>> > is an unknown.  That said, we cannot rely on an unknown.  (I would
>> > also note that the IETF Trust is not the IETF; rather it is a trust
>> > set up for the benefit of the IETF. To the extent that the Trust is
>> > not seen as a legal entity, the trustees (not IETF) would be seen as
>> > the owner of the trust's assets.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think I've already responded to the other point here (recognizing
>> > that the email was a response to Avri), so I'll stop here.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>>
>> > <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     > -----Original Message-----
>> >     >
>> >     > Milton, since you are insisting so much from a Names perspective
>> >     that we
>> >     > agree to transfer this from ICANN to the IETT Trust, I would like
>> to
>> >     > understand what advantage you see for the Names commuity in this
>> >     from
>> >     > the CWG perspective. I understand why you might take the
>> >     position you do
>> >
>> >     That's a fair request and a fairly easy one to answer. In two
>> >     words the answer is 'enhanced separability.' I've said this before
>> >     so perhaps you need a better explanation.
>> >
>> >     The mixture of policy making and implementation functions within
>> >     one names-centric organization (ICANN) has been recognized as
>> >     problematic. One of the key principles underlying the current
>> >     reforms is that the IFO for names should be separate from the
>> >     policy maker, and further that the current IFO should not have a
>> >     permanent monopoly. We should be able to switch to a new names IFO
>> >     if justified. And numbers and protocols already have this
>> >     arrangement. If you want the capacity to switch, then the current
>> >     IFO cannot control or own the IPR associated with IANA; they are
>> >     users of the IPR not its owners. That, I suggest, is the correct
>> >     model for the names community.
>> >
>> >     If we want to consistently implement the basic model that the
>> >     Internet community as a whole recognizes as proper (RFC 7500) we
>> >     cannot have the names-related policy making entity - which is also
>> >     an IFO for all 3 communities at the moment - hold the trademarks
>> >     that need to be used by all three communities and which may need
>> >     to be used by different IFOs. The IETF trust is a neutral
>> >     repository for this IPR that allows the rights to be assigned to
>> >     any IFO as needed.
>> >
>> >     > Also I think you misinterpret the IANAPLAN position.  They say
>> >     they are
>> >     > willing.  They do not request the move.
>> >
>> >     'Willingness' means that their proposal is compatible with the
>> >     numbers proposal. CWG's is not. There's no way around the fact
>> >     that CWG names has worked without regard to what the other two
>> >     communities proposed, and that its proposal is out of step. That
>> >     by itself does not mean it's wrong, but it does suggest that we
>> >     _first_ need to think of changing what randomly made its way into
>> >     our proposal rather than forcing two other communities to change.
>> >     No one has advanced a good reason why a names community entity
>> >     should control it all. The idea that IETF Trust cannot defend or
>> >     monitor the trademark is a mere assertion for which there is no
>> >     concrete evidence, and flies in the face of the fact that the
>> >     source and origin of the IANA registries is the IETF, not ICANN.
>> >
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>
>> >     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> >     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150622/3896e2b4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list