Forwarding on behalf of Richard Hill. On 7/30/15, 4:02 AM, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
Dear Grace,
Please forward this to the CWG-Stewardship mailing list.
Thanks and best, Richard
=================
I have followed with some interest the various postings on the CWG-Stewardship mailing list regarding the issue of the IANA trademark.
From my point of view, the issue is rather simple. The IANA trademark is used to identify services provided in connection with three sets of unique identifiers: protocol parameters, IP addresses, and top-level domain names.
The source for all those identifiers, and the entity that has published the highest level rules regarding their creation and assignment, is the IETF. This is not disputed regarding protocol parameters, nor, I hope, regarding IP addresses, even if the detailed rules for assignment of IP addresses are made by the RIRs.
And I hope that it is not disputed for the legacy gTLDs and the ccTLDs, even if ICANN has made detailed rules for reassignments and for the new gTLDs.
The IETF is not a legally incorporated entity, so it cannot register a trademark. But its legal parent, ISOC, could register the trademark and other intellectual property.
Some years ago, ISOC decided to create an entity, the IETF Trust, specifically for "the advancement of educational and public interest by acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology."
Since the IANA function is nothing more that the administration of certain aspects of Internet standards, and since the ultimate source of those standards is the IETF, it seems obvious to me that the IANA trademark (and indeed all intellectual property associated with the IANA function) should be held by the IETF Trust.
Best, Richard