I'd like to respond to a couple points above:

It's a matter of considerable concern that other
communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would
have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly,
their use of the iana.org registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and
I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that. 

​If​
 
​ICANN retains control of the trademark and domain name, that is essentially the same situation we have today.  The only difference is the license between ICANN and PTI.  There should be no need for the other community's uses of IANA or www.iana.org to be "constrained."  The license to PTI could be non-exclusive, rather than exclusive, to account for these other uses.  So, this should be a matter of no concern, not a matter of "considerable concern."  The underlying concept here is to change as little as possible; if we're changing too much, that should be easy to fix.  As noted above, it likely would be better to enter into licenses with the other communities rather than to continue the current casual set-up (but that requires some discussion and analysis to determine the best options open to us).  As long as we anticipate separation (which clearly will do) that should not be tricky to deal with.

It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider
the domain name iana.org and the trademark on IANA separately, given
that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and
legal-technical) implications with them.

​Trademark-based domain names should be owned by the trademark owner.  There are nuances and exceptions (e.g., as part of a trademark license for the mark ACME for shoes, one might allow the licensee to register and use the domain acmeshoes.com, but you would almost certainly not let them own acme.com), but that's the basic rule.  So ownership cannot be considered separately.  Record ownership aside, there is plenty of flexibility in dealing with the operational aspects of the website(s) found at the domain, including the potential use of subdomains (as I mentioned earlier).

I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others)
considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary
condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to
be destabilising.  I'm sure none of us wants that.

​I'm not quite sure what's being said here -- that having ICANN continue to own the mark increases the likelihood of separation, or increases the difficulty of separation should that be desired by any of the communities?  If it's the first, I don't see why that would be the case.  If it's the second, it's only a marginal increase in difficulty in that the trademark license agreements would need a clause stating that ICANN will grant an irrevocable worldwide royalty-free license to the new operator for that community.

Pulling back to the big picture, I think what is needed here is some rational, dispassionate, collegial and careful discussion of the facts, the law, the desires, the options, the opportunities and the obligations that are in play here to come up with a mutually acceptable common solution.  It's unfortunate that the issue could not have been approached by all three communities at the same time, but that's water under the bridge.  Sharing knowledge and viewpoints will get us much further than trying to prove one another wrong, and be more enjoyable to boot (unless you like that kind of stuff...).

Greg​
 

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 01:37:37PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name
> doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for
> separation.

[…]

I've received some mail off-list about my remarks, and I want to make
some things perfectly clear:

1.  I'm speaking, as always when I send from this address, as an
individual and not as IAB chair.  The IAB chair has no special power
in the IETF, and in my experience as often as not the fact of being on
the IAB is a reason others will believe something _other_ than what
the IAB member says.  I'm just one of the IETF participants, and I do
not represent it or speak for its consensus.  The IETF consensus is
contained in the Internet Draft that emerged from the IANAPLAN working
group.  If I speak as IAB chair, I send the message from the
iab-chair@iab.org address and sign the mail appropriately.

2.  Given what CRISP has proposed, it's quite plain that there's a
conflict between the current ICANN/CWG proposal and the CRISP
proposal.  It's a matter of considerable concern that other
communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would
have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly,
their use of the iana.org registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and
I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that.  To
my everlasting regret (this is not in jest) I am not a lawyer, so I'm
not competent to speak on how trademarks in particular ought to be or
can be held.  It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider
the domain name iana.org and the trademark on IANA separately, given
that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and
legal-technical) implications with them.

It strikes me that, if it really isn't legally possible to move the
ownership of the trademark, one possibility would be for ICANN to
grant a permanent, worldwide, irrevocable (well, for as long as they
hold the trademark, with appropriate succession language or however
one does this) royalty-free license to the trademark to current
communities that use the IANA.  This would avoid problems of being
unable to use the trademark.  Presumably in the case of the NRO it
would have to be sublicensable or something like that, so that new
number organizations would not face a problem if they came into
existence.  I think this license would have to survive separation,
which seems like it might be slightly tricky but presumably not
impossible.

I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others)
considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary
condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to
be destabilising.  I'm sure none of us wants that.

Best regards,

A


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship