CWG:
I am happy to participate in whatever process we decide to follow to deal with this perceived incompatibility.
In the first instance, I would want to clarify to the ICG that the
iana.org domain name is part of this proposal. We may want to clarify that immediately so there is no ambiguity.
Second, I would point out that not every use of a trademark is a "trademark use," requiring a license and/or ownership of the mark. A fact-specific analysis of the use of the term "IANA" by the IETF and RIRs, and the services each provides, is required to determine what rights are needed to continue that use. That said, changing the "exclusive" license to a "non-exclusive" license would not be significant in this situation. The significant issue is what rights need to be granted to each of the 3 groups and what documentation could be required to do so.
I think we need a quick but full fact-finding exercise, and not one where selected facts are revealed as a method of advocacy, but one where all the facts are put on the table for mutual consumption.
In addition to sharing a common set of facts to guide our analysis, we also need to share a common understanding of what a trademark is, what it signifies, what ownership means, and what ownership entails.
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)). There may be enough latitude to accomplish our objectives, whatever they may be.
Finally, I note the tight timeframe requested by the ICG. July 2 is only the fourth business day after ICANN ends, and it's typically a "getaway day" in the USA, since it's beginning the biggest 3-day weekend of the year. Clearly, we are going to need to use some of our copious free time during this ICANN meeting to move forward on this issue.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this. We need to do this quickly. I also suggest that we (presumably the ad hoc team, and probably with the chairs) try to meet with relevant folks from the IETF and the RIRs while we are here, for two reasons: (1) to develop the facts, and (2) to work toward a common and compatible solution. Finally, we need to consider our need for outside counsel with the right skillset to deal with these issues, provide guidance on the law, and provide thoughtful creativity on potential outcomes.
Greg