ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
Dear CWG, The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations. During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3] Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well. The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC. Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132 [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition." [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html
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 On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Alissa Cooper (alcoop) <alcoop@cisco.com> wrote:
Dear CWG,
The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations.
During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term.
Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3]
Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well.
The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.
Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG
[1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132
[2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."
[3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html
[4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Greg: Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member. Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.” I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal. I was interested in this part of your response: 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)). MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark. I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this. MM: I would insist on being on this team.
Hi Milton, sine 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 as a member of the IANAPLAN WG or even as an ICG member (though you do represent the GNSO/NCSG on the group), but I do not see what this does for the CWG. Also I think you misinterpret the IANAPLAN position. They say they are willing. They do not request the move.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
And as you insist on being on this team, i will also insist on being on it. avri On 20-Jun-15 14:47, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Greg:
Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member.
Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
I was interested in this part of your response:
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)).
MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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
-----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.
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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@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@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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
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@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@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu <mailto:mueller@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@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Does anyone have a suggested approach for gathering the facts? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:33 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>" Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://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@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Monday 22 June 2015 11:35 To: Greg Shatan, Avri Doria Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:33 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org<mailto:avri@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@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>>" Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org<http://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@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon 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 To this list I would add: · How the marks are handled must permit all 3 communities to change IANA functions operators and shift usage of the marks to the new operator · The concept of “the IANA” has its origins in IETF standards and refers to registries for unique identifier spaces created by IETF standards While there may be one or two other “facts” that are relevant, on the whole I agree with James that fact-finding or fact identification is not the major task this CWG has to execute at this stage. Rather, our main task is to find a way of “homing the marks” that makes the CWG proposal compatible with the CRISP team and IANAPLAN WG proposals.
These are not correct. Will respond later. On Monday, June 22, 2015, James Gannon <james@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Monday 22 June 2015 11:35 To: Greg Shatan, Avri Doria Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 10:33 AM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@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@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org');>>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');> <mailto:avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>>", " cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');> <mailto:avri@acm.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri@acm.org');>>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@icann.org');> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mueller@syr.edu');>
<mailto:mueller@syr.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mueller@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@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> <mailto: CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CWG-Stewardship@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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@gmail.com> wrote:
These are not correct. Will respond later.
On Monday, June 22, 2015, James Gannon <james@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@icann.org> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" Date: Monday 22 June 2015 11:35 To: Greg Shatan, Avri Doria Cc: "cwg-stewardship@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@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 10:33 AM *To:* Avri Doria *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@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@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@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Milton L Mueller Date: Sunday 21 June 2015 17:03 To: Greg Shatan Cc: "avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>", "cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, June 21, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Milton L Mueller *Cc:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@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@syr.edu
<mailto:mueller@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@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hi, On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.
After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of implementation. Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that) in order to send the document to the ICG. After all, by removing the text and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent. That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues). Does that seem reasonable? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal at this late stage. However, it will be very good if we (with the help of this group and anyone else) can communicate as widely as possible that the TM related language in the Final Proposal is preceded by other text and contained in square brackets such that the Final Proposal effectively does not make a specific proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. This is why (copied from the proposal with my emphasis): -- Annex S: Draft Proposed Term Sheet What follows below is an initial draft proposed term sheet that could be the precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. This is based on a legal memorandum prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the current proposal governs. The term sheet will be subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice). . Terms in [square brackets] are placeholders only [ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.] -- i.e. the trademark related language is placeholder text in square brackets within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG save for as presented in the Final Proposal. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 23 June 2015 15:07 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name Hi, On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.
After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of implementation. Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that) in order to send the document to the ICG. After all, by removing the text and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent. That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues). Does that seem reasonable? A -- Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
As a practical matter, I am actually in favor of Andrew's proposal, since that is the simplest way to signify to a reader that the CWG has not yet formed a position on this point. It is something that we need to work on, based on a speedy (but not hasty) collecting and analysis of all the facts, including facts best learned from members of the protocols and numbers communities, and consultation with outside counsel. The current proposal was perceived by some as being inconsistent with the other proposals and as a result, we were requested by the ICG to rather rapidly resolve this perceived inconsistency. Upon reflection and discussion with a variety of people, I don't think we would be best served dealing with this in a sprint. However, I also take Jonathan's point that the document in fact does not state a position on this point, or indeed on any other point in the Term Sheet in Annex S, given the particular caveats attached to Annex S. I further take our esteemed co-Chairs' point (expressed by Jonathan for himself and Lise) that it is too late to change the physical document. This makes sense to me, given that it is in front of the Chartering Organizations for an "up or down" vote after some weeks of consideration. Further, I trust their judgment to navigate this critical stage. I might tentatively suggest that the co-Chairs consider the possibility of a communication responding to the ICG and providing further comfort that this is not a position being proposed by the CWG and should essentially be "read out" of the document. Thus, the Proposal (being in the end, silent on the matter) is not inconsistent with the other two proposals. Hopefully, this will be sufficient for the ICG to allow us to work out our proposal on this point without a fire drill. I think there is a spirit of goodwill to do so and I am looking forward to the opportunity. Greg On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Andrew,
Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal at this late stage.
However, it will be very good if we (with the help of this group and anyone else) can communicate as widely as possible that the TM related language in the Final Proposal is preceded by other text and contained in square brackets such that the Final Proposal effectively does not make a specific proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject.
This is why (copied from the proposal with my emphasis):
--
Annex S: *Draft Proposed* Term Sheet
What follows below is an *initial draft proposed term sheet* that *could* be the precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. This is based on a legal memorandum prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the current proposal governs. The term sheet will be subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice).
• Terms in [square brackets] are *placeholders only*
[ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.]
--
i.e. the trademark related language is placeholder text in square brackets within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG save for as presented in the Final Proposal.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 23 June 2015 15:07 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.
After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of implementation.
Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that) in order to send the document to the ICG. After all, by removing the text and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent.
That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues).
Does that seem reasonable?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree with Greg's suggestion to Co-Chairs. That said, I think it will be good to determine the CWG's position on the issue as soon as possible. I think It's really a minor issue that should not have taken the amount of traffic already witnessed and I recognise I am probably one of the contributors to that, so I say this with all sense of responsibility ;-) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Jun 2015 19:27, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
As a practical matter, I am actually in favor of Andrew's proposal, since that is the simplest way to signify to a reader that the CWG has not yet formed a position on this point. It is something that we need to work on, based on a speedy (but not hasty) collecting and analysis of all the facts, including facts best learned from members of the protocols and numbers communities, and consultation with outside counsel.
The current proposal was perceived by some as being inconsistent with the other proposals and as a result, we were requested by the ICG to rather rapidly resolve this perceived inconsistency. Upon reflection and discussion with a variety of people, I don't think we would be best served dealing with this in a sprint.
However, I also take Jonathan's point that the document in fact does not state a position on this point, or indeed on any other point in the Term Sheet in Annex S, given the particular caveats attached to Annex S. I further take our esteemed co-Chairs' point (expressed by Jonathan for himself and Lise) that it is too late to change the physical document. This makes sense to me, given that it is in front of the Chartering Organizations for an "up or down" vote after some weeks of consideration. Further, I trust their judgment to navigate this critical stage.
I might tentatively suggest that the co-Chairs consider the possibility of a communication responding to the ICG and providing further comfort that this is not a position being proposed by the CWG and should essentially be "read out" of the document. Thus, the Proposal (being in the end, silent on the matter) is not inconsistent with the other two proposals.
Hopefully, this will be sufficient for the ICG to allow us to work out our proposal on this point without a fire drill. I think there is a spirit of goodwill to do so and I am looking forward to the opportunity.
Greg
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info
wrote:
Andrew,
Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal at this late stage.
However, it will be very good if we (with the help of this group and anyone else) can communicate as widely as possible that the TM related language in the Final Proposal is preceded by other text and contained in square brackets such that the Final Proposal effectively does not make a specific proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject.
This is why (copied from the proposal with my emphasis):
--
Annex S: *Draft Proposed* Term Sheet
What follows below is an *initial draft proposed term sheet* that *could* be the precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. This is based on a legal memorandum prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the current proposal governs. The term sheet will be subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice).
• Terms in [square brackets] are *placeholders only*
[ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.]
--
i.e. the trademark related language is placeholder text in square brackets within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG save for as presented in the Final Proposal.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 23 June 2015 15:07 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.
After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of implementation.
Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that) in order to send the document to the ICG. After all, by removing the text and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent.
That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues).
Does that seem reasonable?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Greg, Indeed, Lise and I do plan to respond to the ICG letter in good time and we can touch on that at the CWG meeting tomorrow. Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 23 June 2015 19:27 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name As a practical matter, I am actually in favor of Andrew's proposal, since that is the simplest way to signify to a reader that the CWG has not yet formed a position on this point. It is something that we need to work on, based on a speedy (but not hasty) collecting and analysis of all the facts, including facts best learned from members of the protocols and numbers communities, and consultation with outside counsel. The current proposal was perceived by some as being inconsistent with the other proposals and as a result, we were requested by the ICG to rather rapidly resolve this perceived inconsistency. Upon reflection and discussion with a variety of people, I don't think we would be best served dealing with this in a sprint. However, I also take Jonathan's point that the document in fact does not state a position on this point, or indeed on any other point in the Term Sheet in Annex S, given the particular caveats attached to Annex S. I further take our esteemed co-Chairs' point (expressed by Jonathan for himself and Lise) that it is too late to change the physical document. This makes sense to me, given that it is in front of the Chartering Organizations for an "up or down" vote after some weeks of consideration. Further, I trust their judgment to navigate this critical stage. I might tentatively suggest that the co-Chairs consider the possibility of a communication responding to the ICG and providing further comfort that this is not a position being proposed by the CWG and should essentially be "read out" of the document. Thus, the Proposal (being in the end, silent on the matter) is not inconsistent with the other two proposals. Hopefully, this will be sufficient for the ICG to allow us to work out our proposal on this point without a fire drill. I think there is a spirit of goodwill to do so and I am looking forward to the opportunity. Greg On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote: Andrew, Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal at this late stage. However, it will be very good if we (with the help of this group and anyone else) can communicate as widely as possible that the TM related language in the Final Proposal is preceded by other text and contained in square brackets such that the Final Proposal effectively does not make a specific proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. This is why (copied from the proposal with my emphasis): -- Annex S: Draft Proposed Term Sheet What follows below is an initial draft proposed term sheet that could be the precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. This is based on a legal memorandum prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the current proposal governs. The term sheet will be subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice). • Terms in [square brackets] are placeholders only [ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.] -- i.e. the trademark related language is placeholder text in square brackets within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG save for as presented in the Final Proposal. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 23 June 2015 15:07 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name Hi, On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:
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.
After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of implementation. Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that) in order to send the document to the ICG. After all, by removing the text and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent. That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues). Does that seem reasonable? A -- Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 05:02:32PM -0300, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal at this late stage.
I can see an argument for that, yeah.
proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject.
This is good to have on the record in this list, and I think what I'll do (at least) when people argue about this is point them at this message in the archive. Thanks! Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 01:55:15PM +0000, 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
For whatever it's worth, Jari and I (with our IETF and IAB hats on) asked the IAOC to ask the IETF's counsel for his view (this is within Jorge's area of specialization). I've asked him to review some of the discussion on the list as well. I observe that one of the things the Trust does is hold the marks for the IETF. None of that is meant to minimise Avri's argument, which is different (i.e. hers is not that the IETF Trust _can't_ hold the mark, but that it shouldn't). The "can" and "should" questions are different problems, and I thought more views about the "can" one would be helpful. I'll ensure that I can get whatever advice the IAOC receives to release back to the CWG. I don't wish to suggest that we should accept whatever Jorge says; I'm just offering to get the opinion of someone else in the field. Best regards, A (for myself, as usual) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Thanks Andrew. The more expertise we can bring to bear on this the better. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:34 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 01:55:15PM +0000, 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
For whatever it's worth, Jari and I (with our IETF and IAB hats on) asked the IAOC to ask the IETF's counsel for his view (this is within Jorge's area of specialization). I've asked him to review some of the discussion on the list as well. I observe that one of the things the Trust does is hold the marks for the IETF. None of that is meant to minimise Avri's argument, which is different (i.e. hers is not that the IETF Trust _can't_ hold the mark, but that it shouldn't). The "can" and "should" questions are different problems, and I thought more views about the "can" one would be helpful. I'll ensure that I can get whatever advice the IAOC receives to release back to the CWG. I don't wish to suggest that we should accept whatever Jorge says; I'm just offering to get the opinion of someone else in the field. Best regards, A (for myself, as usual) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Fully agreed, we need to work out the ‘cans’ before we decide on the ‘wants’ -James On 22/06/2015 11:37, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
and I thought more views about the "can" one would be helpful
Hi, On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:56AM -0300, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
For whatever it's worth, Jari and I (with our IETF and IAB hats on) asked the IAOC to ask the IETF's counsel for his view (this is within Jorge's area of specialization). I've asked him to review some of the discussion on the list as well. I observe that one of the things the Trust does is hold the marks for the IETF.
Jorge got back to us already, and he had some observations. I'll summarise. He observed that there should be no legal impediment to the IETF Trust holding the mark. The IETF Trust could hold the mark and license it as appropriate to all the relevant entities, in much the way that Disney licenses marks for (e.g.) clothes or toys, neither of which Disney makes itself. He also observed that there might be questions about the Trust's ability to manage a mark, but noted that the IETF Trust has been doing as much for some time for other marks it holds. Assuming the Trust is prepared to take on the burden, there's no reason to suppose it couldn't manage the mark. So, it seems to me we have at least one lawyer who thinks there would not be a legal impediment to undertaking this, at least in respect of trademark law. (I think the use of the iana.org domain name is less problematic, since there surely couldn't be a legal impediment to any organization acting as registrant there. At least, I hope we all agree about that.) I observe that the IETF Trust (and the IETF itself) has not expressed a preference for the disposition of the trademark or domain name, though it has expressed its willingness to hold them if that is useful. Finally, I will point out something that was posted to another mailing list. In a message to ianaplan@ietf.org, Bob Hinden pointed out that the IETF Trust's charter extends past IETF materials. Article II of the Trust Agreement says this: Such purposes include, but are not limited to, the advancement of education 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. Bob argues that the operation of IANA lands pretty squarely in the scope of, "[A]dvancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet," so the Trust might well therefore be an appropriate place. Therefore, it seems to me that the question of whether the trademark and the domain name _can_ be moved may be answered in the affirmative. In addition, it seems to me that the question of whether the trademark and domain name _should_ me moved could be answered in the affirmative too. Best regards, A (speaking only for myself, as ever) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 22 June 2015 at 17:21, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:56AM -0300, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
For whatever it's worth, Jari and I (with our IETF and IAB hats on) asked the IAOC to ask the IETF's counsel for his view (this is within Jorge's area of specialization). I've asked him to review some of the discussion on the list as well. I observe that one of the things the Trust does is hold the marks for the IETF.
Jorge got back to us already, and he had some observations. I'll summarise.
He observed that there should be no legal impediment to the IETF Trust holding the mark. The IETF Trust could hold the mark and license it as appropriate to all the relevant entities, in much the way that Disney licenses marks for (e.g.) clothes or toys, neither of which Disney makes itself.
He also observed that there might be questions about the Trust's ability to manage a mark, but noted that the IETF Trust has been doing as much for some time for other marks it holds. Assuming the Trust is prepared to take on the burden, there's no reason to suppose it couldn't manage the mark.
So, it seems to me we have at least one lawyer who thinks there would not be a legal impediment to undertaking this, at least in respect of trademark law. (I think the use of the iana.org domain name is less problematic, since there surely couldn't be a legal impediment to any organization acting as registrant there. At least, I hope we all agree about that.) I observe that the IETF Trust (and the IETF itself) has not expressed a preference for the disposition of the trademark or domain name, though it has expressed its willingness to hold them if that is useful.
Finally, I will point out something that was posted to another mailing list. In a message to ianaplan@ietf.org, Bob Hinden pointed out that the IETF Trust's charter extends past IETF materials. Article II of the Trust Agreement says this:
Such purposes include, but are not limited to, the advancement of education 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.
Bob argues that the operation of IANA lands pretty squarely in the scope of, "[A]dvancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet," so the Trust might well therefore be an appropriate place.
Therefore, it seems to me that the question of whether the trademark and the domain name _can_ be moved may be answered in the affirmative. In addition, it seems to me that the question of whether the trademark and domain name _should_ me moved could be answered in the affirmative too.
Best regards,
A (speaking only for myself, as ever)
Thank you Andrew. This is very important information, especially on the Charter of the IETF Trust. Sincerely, ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
A couple of thoughts. I don;t think that someone “insisting” they have an active voice has always been a precondition for being selected. Second, there is or was a choice made about two decades ago (looking backwards) to reserve the string iana.[com,net,org]. I am not at all sure that the string “iana” is protected in _ALL_ other delegations in the DNS. Or even could be. Is that going to be an issue? manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 20June2015Saturday, at 10:47, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg: Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member. Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
I was interested in this part of your response:
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)).
MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
The iana.org registration dates back to 1996. A spot check confirms that "iana" is available in certain other delegations. (I guess the string was never put on the reserved list.) Strings with iana plus other characters were also available. It's an issue in the sense that third parties could acquire the string in other TLDs, which could be used for various purposes (including fan sites, I guess). This could lead to enforcement concerns (a discussion of which is not necessary for current purposes). It should not raise operational issues (unless a third party engaged in some unsavory behavior). Greg On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:13 PM, manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> wrote:
A couple of thoughts. I don;t think that someone “insisting” they have an active voice has always been a precondition for being selected. Second, there is or was a choice made about two decades ago (looking backwards) to reserve the string iana.[com,net,org]. I am not at all sure that the string “iana” is protected in _ALL_ other delegations in the DNS. Or even could be. Is that going to be an issue?
manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102
On 20June2015Saturday, at 10:47, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg: Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member. Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
I was interested in this part of your response:
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)).
MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
before there existed the idea of “reserved lists”, there were registrations for iana in .org, .net, and .com. in part because there was serious confusion with these folks: ‘Islamic Assembly of North America’ (see http://www.investigativeproject.org/FCNA-CAIR.html) manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 20June2015Saturday, at 16:03, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
The iana.org registration dates back to 1996. A spot check confirms that "iana" is available in certain other delegations. (I guess the string was never put on the reserved list.) Strings with iana plus other characters were also available.
It's an issue in the sense that third parties could acquire the string in other TLDs, which could be used for various purposes (including fan sites, I guess). This could lead to enforcement concerns (a discussion of which is not necessary for current purposes). It should not raise operational issues (unless a third party engaged in some unsavory behavior).
Greg
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:13 PM, manning <bmanning@karoshi.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts. I don;t think that someone “insisting” they have an active voice has always been a precondition for being selected. Second, there is or was a choice made about two decades ago (looking backwards) to reserve the string iana.[com,net,org]. I am not at all sure that the string “iana” is protected in _ALL_ other delegations in the DNS. Or even could be. Is that going to be an issue?
manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102
On 20June2015Saturday, at 10:47, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg: Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member. Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
I was interested in this part of your response:
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)).
MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I think this thread has heated up a bit unnecessarily. Everybody relax! :-) Lets take a step back and look where we are. The first thing to recognise is that the actual CWG proposal under consideration is still fine. The text that we are debating is a part of an appendix that has some initial text for the implementation phase of the proposal. Not final text for agreements, nor even consider by the whole CWG. This text, and the implementation effort, is clearly subject to further work. So, we are talking about something that we all together need to get done in the implementation phase. Everybody in agreement with the above so far? Good. Maybe we could get this also acknowledged by the CWG chairs, which would reduce the worry on ICG and other community sides, I think. The second thing to recognise is that we all from the different communities have to be OK with whatever the final implementation is. I certainly hope we all are on board with this as well. Please also be mindful that various alternatives may have some impact on other community processes, including timelines. Hence the way that the ICG question was formulated. Of course, we still *do* need to find a way to implement this properly and have everyone agree. I won’t say more about what I think would be the right ways of doing that in this e-mail. But I will say one thing. No matter what the solution is, there will be specific agreements that specify what the rights and responsibilities are. Just because someone is holding something doesn’t mean everything is OK. That someone will have contracts with others granting them rights and will be contractually required to honour that and continue to point to iana.org subdomains or whatever technical solution is used for the domain part. Jari
Well said Jari. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Date:06/21/2015 8:21 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and http://iana.org domain name I think this thread has heated up a bit unnecessarily. Everybody relax! :-) Lets take a step back and look where we are. The first thing to recognise is that the actual CWG proposal under consideration is still fine. The text that we are debating is a part of an appendix that has some initial text for the implementation phase of the proposal. Not final text for agreements, nor even consider by the whole CWG. This text, and the implementation effort, is clearly subject to further work. So, we are talking about something that we all together need to get done in the implementation phase. Everybody in agreement with the above so far? Good. Maybe we could get this also acknowledged by the CWG chairs, which would reduce the worry on ICG and other community sides, I think. The second thing to recognise is that we all from the different communities have to be OK with whatever the final implementation is. I certainly hope we all are on board with this as well. Please also be mindful that various alternatives may have some impact on other community processes, including timelines. Hence the way that the ICG question was formulated. Of course, we still *do* need to find a way to implement this properly and have everyone agree. I won’t say more about what I think would be the right ways of doing that in this e-mail. But I will say one thing. No matter what the solution is, there will be specific agreements that specify what the rights and responsibilities are. Just because someone is holding something doesn’t mean everything is OK. That someone will have contracts with others granting them rights and will be contractually required to honour that and continue to point to iana.org subdomains or whatever technical solution is used for the domain part. Jari
Milton, On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg:
Here I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member.
Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities” and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities.”
I note that the language you so kindly called to my attention goes on to say "and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified." There's no reason to work in silos.
I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
I disagree. First, I don't think we should make this decision without appropriate analysis, which should still be relatively quick (although maybe not particularly easy). Second, our marching orders are to make changes only where they are justified and we need to provide a justification;"going along to get along" is not an appropriate justification. Third, and while I won't repeat what I said in prior emails, I put forward a number of problems that could lead to harm to the community -- for instance, we don't know if the IETF Trust is capable of exercising the quality control and approval rights, and policing and enforcement obligations, required of a trademark owner. In any event, that is a fact-based analysis, which is why I encouraged us to come to a common understanding of the facts before coming to any conclusions or for that matter, engaging in advocacy of any position.
I was interested in this part of your response:
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)).
MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
For the reasons I've already stated, I'm refraining from advocacy of any position. However, I think the concern about separability (which is the state of being capable of separating, not the act of separation) is misplaced. ICANN currently holds a variety of assets used in and necessary to the execution of the IANA Functions. Many of these may be transferred to PTI; others may be retained by ICANN. All of these need to be capable of being transferred to a new IFO (whether for one community or all); these are just a few assets on the list -- assets that are fairly easy and straightforward to transfer to the right party at the right time. Actually, transferring the marks (and domains) to the IETF Trust is more likely to have a negative effect on separability, since a trademark owner must approve (after due diligence, inspection and analysis, not just a rubberstamp) any new licensee or a transfer of any license; so, the IETF Trust would have to approve any transfer of the IFO, even one solely for names (or numbers). Greg
I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this.
MM: I would insist on being on this team.
participants (13)
-
'Andrew Sullivan' -
Alissa Cooper (alcoop) -
Andrew Sullivan
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jari Arkko -
Jonathan Robinson -
manning -
Milton L Mueller -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Seun Ojedeji