Andrew,
I didn't think you were _trying_ to blur anything. It happens. When the question was asked "> None of the slides talk about the IETF's process and history of exercising oversight and quality control for IPR. Is information available in that regard?" you responded with the Trademark Usage Guidelines. My intent was only to point out that these Guidelines do provide guidance for use of the IETF trademark, but don't deal with the issue of quality control.
Your answer may continue the blurring, albeit inadvertently, in talking about the "uses" that the trustees see. It appears that you are referring to uses of the mark, when the things that I was not seeing (and should be seeing) relate to quality control of the services being provided under the license, which has nothing to do with how the mark is being used.
I appreciate the reference to AMS. I took a look at the IETF license, and it also seems to have the same problem of blurring the distinction between controlling uses of the mark and controlling quality of services provided by the ilcensee. (So, perhaps you've inherited this blurring problem from the way it is being handled in the IETF Trust.) The "quality control" provision of this license reads:
Licensee recognizes the importance of Licensor’s exercise of control over the
quality of use of the Marks. Accordingly, Licensee agrees that all uses of the Marks shall be in
accordance with the quality standards determined by Licensor from time to time which have
been provided to Licensee in advance of the implementation of such standards, and Licensor shall
have the right to suspend or terminate the licenses granted hereunder with respect to the Marks at
any time that Licensee fails to comply with such quality standards; provided that Licensee has
failed to cure such breach within thirty (30) days following Licensor’s notification thereof.
Licensor shall notify Licensee of any such deficiency and describe any requested quality
improvements
While this purports to be a "quality control" provision, it is in fact a trademark use provision. There is no other quality control provision in the agreement. While it is permissible to rely on "seeing the uses" rather than contractual documentation when it comes to trademark use control, it unfortunately is not permissible to do so when it comes to quality control; this results in something called a "naked license," which sounds like it might be a Good Thing, but is in fact a Very Bad Thing.
I agree that these are questions for the Trust or its counsel. However, I think this list is the right place to develop these questions before they are asked of the Trust or its counsel, since this list (along with calls, meetings and documents) is where the CWG does its work.
I think this also points out another issue, if in fact the IETF Trust (or any other trust) becomes the owner of the marks and the domain names: we (the Names Community) have no oversight or control of the IETF Trust and there is no accountability by the IETF Trust to the names community. The Trust is really a creation of the IETF, which creates "fitness for purpose" issues. Perhaps some of these issues could be resolved in part through adding Trustees from the names community and amending the Trust document in various ways.
Greg