Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks): USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)— https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1: 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following: (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")." The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: RFC 1060 --March 1990: “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752... ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007. Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. Best regards, John Poole On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote: I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
John, Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.) Interestingly, for what it's worth, the original applicant and registrant of the IETF trademarks was the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, which assigned the marks in 2006 to the IETF Trust.f Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:17 AM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)— https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.) MM: This is completely wrong. I am reminded of the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You seem eager to seize on bits of incomplete evidence to support a conclusion that you have already arrived at and cling to despite growing mounds of evidence to the contrary. No one has ever said that IETF “is” the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to “The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs…” In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA is therefore an extension of IETF’s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. It is therefore appropriate for the IETF trust to own IANA-related marks and domains, and furthermore the IETF is already committed to keeping the registries in the public domain.
Hi,
Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.) []
No one has ever said that IETF ³is² the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. I'd also suggest reading https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf, section 2. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to ³The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs² In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA is therefore an extension of IETF¹s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. If it helps, it might be easier to view IETF as an Standards Development Organization and "the IANA" (initially (in the early '70s) with Jon Postel as the sole "numbers czar" then later, more formalized and having multiple full-time staff) as its secretariat. That is, I believe, how "the IANA" has always functioned and my understanding (which is undoubtedly wrong) was that ICANN was created in order (among other things) to provide a legal entity for the IANA functions. Regards, -drc
If it helps, it might be easier to view IETF as an Standards Development Organization and "the IANA" (initially (in the early '70s) with Jon Postel as the sole "numbers czar" then later, more formalized and having multiple full-time staff) as its secretariat. MM: Yes. That may be a better, more accessible way of putting it. But the critical point in this TM-related dispute is who is responsible for the basic identity of "the IANA" - who defines what it is and what its role is in Internet coordination? I think it's more appropriate for IETF, as the developer of the standards for names, numbers and protocols, to be that. The whole concept of an IANA emerges from IETF standards development and from IETF RFCs. and my understanding (which is undoubtedly wrong) was that ICANN was created in order (among other things) to provide a legal entity for the IANA functions. MM: Partly true. ICANN was created to solve the problem of domain name trademark disputes and to make policy for new gTLDs as well as to provide IANA functions; the problem was that those "other things" (namely, DNS policy development) took over the game. ICANN isn't anything like what Postel thought it was going to be in 1998. Going forward the basic paradigm is that each operational community has a severable contract with an IFO for its own registries. Right now all 3 of them will use PTI but anyone of them could change that in the future. It makes no sense for either the numbers or the names policy making entities to control the broader IANA mark/domain. It only makes sense for the higher-level entity, the IETF standards trust, to do so, given that IANA spans names, numbers and protocols.
First, I support the way forward as concluded by the chairs. It is important for the CWG work to move to the next step. Anyway, I would like to emphasise that we are in this together. The three communities need to work together to have an acceptable solution for all. I’m happy to help on this issue as needed, as I am sure are others. And even the solution needs to be seen as not one entity controlling the others, but a shared arrangement where all of us feel comfortable that we have the necessary ability to conduct our business. We have provided an offer from the IETF Trust to help if needed*. We are an existing entity with a stable and known history, and willingness to support the communities with that shared arrangement. Finally, I think it is important that the current language be changed as we move forward from the “initial draft language” to something more realistic. It is important to realise that all of us in the different communities use the terms, for instance, in 3351 IETF RFCs dating back three decades. It is very important that PTI gets the rights it needs, but on quick look, the “exclusive license” text does not seem to take into account the broader view of use of the domains and terms outside PTI. Jari *) We do not require an arrangement, but would be happy to participate in one. And obviously, we do not want to see an arrangement that would cause problems for us or the other communities.
Jari, I agree strongly with just about everything you've said, and that's the approach I prefer to take going forward. As for your last point regarding whether the license is exclusive or non-exclusive -- I think that what is necessary here is further analysis of the nature and type of use that each community (and others) make of the term IANA. Not every use of a trademark requires a license (I don't need a license from Nike to wear their athletic gear) but a fact-specific analysis needs to be done to determine whether and what kind of license is needed. In the end, the goal is to allow PTI and each of the other communities the appropriate latitude to use the mark and domains while still staying within the bounds of trademark law and protecting the strength and value of the mark. I look forward to helping with that analysis. Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
First, I support the way forward as concluded by the chairs. It is important for the CWG work to move to the next step.
Anyway, I would like to emphasise that we are in this together. The three communities need to work together to have an acceptable solution for all. I’m happy to help on this issue as needed, as I am sure are others. And even the solution needs to be seen as not one entity controlling the others, but a shared arrangement where all of us feel comfortable that we have the necessary ability to conduct our business.
We have provided an offer from the IETF Trust to help if needed*. We are an existing entity with a stable and known history, and willingness to support the communities with that shared arrangement.
Finally, I think it is important that the current language be changed as we move forward from the “initial draft language” to something more realistic. It is important to realise that all of us in the different communities use the terms, for instance, in 3351 IETF RFCs dating back three decades. It is very important that PTI gets the rights it needs, but on quick look, the “exclusive license” text does not seem to take into account the broader view of use of the domains and terms outside PTI.
Jari
*) We do not require an arrangement, but would be happy to participate in one. And obviously, we do not want to see an arrangement that would cause problems for us or the other communities.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
As one who honestly doesn’t have an opinion as to where the mark should reside and definitely one who doesn’t have the expertise in trademark law or the technical community to properly evaluate the options, I suggest that we tone down the discussion a bit and do something like the following: 1. Identify the requirements that any entity holding the trademark must meet. 2. Identify all other factors that should be considered in considering where the trademark should reside. 3. List the options for possible holders of the trademark. 4. Compare the list in 3 to the results of 1 & 2 to narrow down the list of options as much as possible. 5. Arrange a joint meeting of representatives from the three communities to collaborate on a solution that all can support. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:12 PM To: Greg Shatan; John Poole Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.) MM: This is completely wrong. I am reminded of the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You seem eager to seize on bits of incomplete evidence to support a conclusion that you have already arrived at and cling to despite growing mounds of evidence to the contrary. No one has ever said that IETF “is” the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to “The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs…” In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA is therefore an extension of IETF’s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. It is therefore appropriate for the IETF trust to own IANA-related marks and domains, and furthermore the IETF is already committed to keeping the registries in the public domain.
Come to think of it, ain't we supposed to be transitioning NTIA stewardship role, and does NTIA have the trademark in it's custody at the moment? isn't the trademark with ICANN at present and would we say it would have barred NTIA from awarding the contract to another entity if it wants to? I don't think so. I think we may be touching/moving/changing too much in this transition that makes me wonder what our individual goal of this transition is. For me it's to continue to have a strong ICANN as the IFO, looks like that may not be the case for some. With the way things are going, I fear that ICANN community would drift further away from consensus/commonness approach and enter into a voting/more political setup that would only accommodate community members with the fitness (in terms of access to resources). At the moment it's one direction arrow towards ICANN board, it seem the arrow will be multiple directions and across communities post transition. Again the most fitted community (in terms of access to resources) would suffice. I say this with huge sense of responsibility! Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2015 21:46, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
As one who honestly doesn’t have an opinion as to where the mark should reside and definitely one who doesn’t have the expertise in trademark law or the technical community to properly evaluate the options, I suggest that we tone down the discussion a bit and do something like the following:
1. Identify the requirements that any entity holding the trademark must meet.
2. Identify all other factors that should be considered in considering where the trademark should reside.
3. List the options for possible holders of the trademark.
4. Compare the list in 3 to the results of 1 & 2 to narrow down the list of options as much as possible.
5. Arrange a joint meeting of representatives from the three communities to collaborate on a solution that all can support.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; John Poole *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>]
Thanks -- that's very helpful and supports the position that the IETF is not now and never has been IANA. (Which in no way discounts the close relationship that the IETF has with IANA, and the historical origins of both.)
MM: This is completely wrong. I am reminded of the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” You seem eager to seize on bits of incomplete evidence to support a conclusion that you have already arrived at and cling to despite growing mounds of evidence to the contrary.
No one has ever said that IETF “is” the IANA. What has been said is that the IANA is a label for registries based on IETF standards. I strongly suggest that you read RFC 2434 here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 for a basic explanation of what IANA is and how it is related to IETF. Next I would suggest that you read RFC 2860, the MoU between ICANN and IETF regarding the IANA functions for protocols, which commits ICANN to
“The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters
only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs…”
In RFC 2860, the IETF basically dictates to ICANN what the IANA will do to ensure that it is integrated with the IETF standards development process. The IANA is therefore an extension of IETF’s standards process, it coordinates unique entries in various registries created by the IETF standards. It is therefore appropriate for the IETF trust to own IANA-related marks and domains, and furthermore the IETF is already committed to keeping the registries in the public domain.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities. I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on. From: john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] On Behalf Of John Poole Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks): USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)—https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1: 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following: (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")." The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: RFC 1060 --March 1990: “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752... ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007. Domain name iana.org<http://iana.org> has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. Best regards, John Poole On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Greg, not quite. You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org<http://iana.org> has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org<http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org<http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive. Alan At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Alan, You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates. I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. Greg On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to: 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary. 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption. In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary. But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 04:53:56PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
The IETF did _not_ want "the marks separate from ICANN". The IETF's consensus was clearly that it didn't need that. Later, it became clear that nobody would object if others wanted the IETF Trust to hold things. Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for separation. In the event of a friendly separation in which all parties are co-operating, then the right redirections will be added (at the http level, for instance) for the relevant resources, and there won't be any operational problem. On the other hand, in the event of a contested separation, there is no reason at all to suppose that a legal agreement would be helpful: the incumbent operator would contest the change, regardless of who had control of the resource, and the remedies would have to be pursued via the law. That would be too slow to be practical, so the relevant operational community would have to make an emergency change anyway. It would be extremely disruptive no matter what the outcome, and so the emergency change would be effectively a permanent one. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
+1 CW PS: Please see my comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15... Regarding 'separation(s)', <<Remedial action would have to be taken long before the whole process of separation, as described, could take effect. Therefore I rather doubt the necessity or wisdom of making structural changes now, to deal with a doomsday scenario that cannot be allowed to materialise, ever.>> PPS: what is this 'drift'? Is that a typo for 'draft'? On 11 Jun 2015, at 19:37, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 04:53:56PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
The IETF did _not_ want "the marks separate from ICANN". The IETF's consensus was clearly that it didn't need that. Later, it became clear that nobody would object if others wanted the IETF Trust to hold things.
Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for separation. In the event of a friendly separation in which all parties are co-operating, then the right redirections will be added (at the http level, for instance) for the relevant resources, and there won't be any operational problem. On the other hand, in the event of a contested separation, there is no reason at all to suppose that a legal agreement would be helpful: the incumbent operator would contest the change, regardless of who had control of the resource, and the remedies would have to be pursued via the law. That would be too slow to be practical, so the relevant operational community would have to make an emergency change anyway. It would be extremely disruptive no matter what the outcome, and so the emergency change would be effectively a permanent one.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear colleagues, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 01:37:37PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for separation.
[…] I've received some mail off-list about my remarks, and I want to make some things perfectly clear: 1. I'm speaking, as always when I send from this address, as an individual and not as IAB chair. The IAB chair has no special power in the IETF, and in my experience as often as not the fact of being on the IAB is a reason others will believe something _other_ than what the IAB member says. I'm just one of the IETF participants, and I do not represent it or speak for its consensus. The IETF consensus is contained in the Internet Draft that emerged from the IANAPLAN working group. If I speak as IAB chair, I send the message from the iab-chair@iab.org address and sign the mail appropriately. 2. Given what CRISP has proposed, it's quite plain that there's a conflict between the current ICANN/CWG proposal and the CRISP proposal. It's a matter of considerable concern that other communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly, their use of the iana.org registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that. To my everlasting regret (this is not in jest) I am not a lawyer, so I'm not competent to speak on how trademarks in particular ought to be or can be held. It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider the domain name iana.org and the trademark on IANA separately, given that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and legal-technical) implications with them. It strikes me that, if it really isn't legally possible to move the ownership of the trademark, one possibility would be for ICANN to grant a permanent, worldwide, irrevocable (well, for as long as they hold the trademark, with appropriate succession language or however one does this) royalty-free license to the trademark to current communities that use the IANA. This would avoid problems of being unable to use the trademark. Presumably in the case of the NRO it would have to be sublicensable or something like that, so that new number organizations would not face a problem if they came into existence. I think this license would have to survive separation, which seems like it might be slightly tricky but presumably not impossible. I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others) considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to be destabilising. I'm sure none of us wants that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I'd like to respond to a couple points above: It's a matter of considerable concern that other
communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly, their use of the iana.org registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that.
If ICANN retains control of the trademark and domain name, that is essentially the same situation we have today. The only difference is the license between ICANN and PTI. There should be no need for the other community's uses of IANA or www.iana.org to be "constrained." The license to PTI could be non-exclusive, rather than exclusive, to account for these other uses. So, this should be a matter of no concern, not a matter of "considerable concern." The underlying concept here is to change as little as possible; if we're changing too much, that should be easy to fix. As noted above, it likely would be better to enter into licenses with the other communities rather than to continue the current casual set-up (but that requires some discussion and analysis to determine the best options open to us). As long as we anticipate separation (which clearly will do) that should not be tricky to deal with. It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider
the domain name iana.org and the trademark on IANA separately, given that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and legal-technical) implications with them.
Trademark-based domain names should be owned by the trademark owner. There are nuances and exceptions (e.g., as part of a trademark license for the mark ACME for shoes, one might allow the licensee to register and use the domain acmeshoes.com, but you would almost certainly not let them own acme.com), but that's the basic rule. So ownership cannot be considered separately. Record ownership aside, there is plenty of flexibility in dealing with the operational aspects of the website(s) found at the domain, including the potential use of subdomains (as I mentioned earlier). I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others)
considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to be destabilising. I'm sure none of us wants that.
I'm not quite sure what's being said here -- that having ICANN continue to own the mark increases the likelihood of separation, or increases the difficulty of separation should that be desired by any of the communities? If it's the first, I don't see why that would be the case. If it's the second, it's only a marginal increase in difficulty in that the trademark license agreements would need a clause stating that ICANN will grant an irrevocable worldwide royalty-free license to the new operator for that community. Pulling back to the big picture, I think what is needed here is some rational, dispassionate, collegial and careful discussion of the facts, the law, the desires, the options, the opportunities and the obligations that are in play here to come up with a mutually acceptable common solution. It's unfortunate that the issue could not have been approached by all three communities at the same time, but that's water under the bridge. Sharing knowledge and viewpoints will get us much further than trying to prove one another wrong, and be more enjoyable to boot (unless you like that kind of stuff...). Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 01:37:37PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for separation.
[…]
I've received some mail off-list about my remarks, and I want to make some things perfectly clear:
1. I'm speaking, as always when I send from this address, as an individual and not as IAB chair. The IAB chair has no special power in the IETF, and in my experience as often as not the fact of being on the IAB is a reason others will believe something _other_ than what the IAB member says. I'm just one of the IETF participants, and I do not represent it or speak for its consensus. The IETF consensus is contained in the Internet Draft that emerged from the IANAPLAN working group. If I speak as IAB chair, I send the message from the iab-chair@iab.org address and sign the mail appropriately.
2. Given what CRISP has proposed, it's quite plain that there's a conflict between the current ICANN/CWG proposal and the CRISP proposal. It's a matter of considerable concern that other communities, who currently rely on their use of the term IANA, would have their use of that name (and frankly, rather more importantly, their use of the iana.org registries) constrained by ICANN or PTI, and I'd be quite surprised if they'd be ok with just accepting that. To my everlasting regret (this is not in jest) I am not a lawyer, so I'm not competent to speak on how trademarks in particular ought to be or can be held. It strikes me that we probably would be wise to consider the domain name iana.org and the trademark on IANA separately, given that there are different technical (i.e. both technology-technical and legal-technical) implications with them.
It strikes me that, if it really isn't legally possible to move the ownership of the trademark, one possibility would be for ICANN to grant a permanent, worldwide, irrevocable (well, for as long as they hold the trademark, with appropriate succession language or however one does this) royalty-free license to the trademark to current communities that use the IANA. This would avoid problems of being unable to use the trademark. Presumably in the case of the NRO it would have to be sublicensable or something like that, so that new number organizations would not face a problem if they came into existence. I think this license would have to survive separation, which seems like it might be slightly tricky but presumably not impossible.
I think the position that Greg advanced (along with others) considerably increases the risk of IANA separation as a necessary condition for the transition, which seems bad since it would tend to be destabilising. I'm sure none of us wants that.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Milton: Thanks for your reply. I respectively disagree with your opinion that "the trademark record is not relevant" just as I would disagree with anyone's opinion that the history of a domain name, in this case iana.org, its use and registration is "not relevant." However I now understand why the ICANN UDRP policy is such an "unfair, unpredictable mess" if your opinion of what is or is not relevant in regard to trademarks and domain names is indicative of the understanding of others within ICANN's UDRP policy-making body. Let's be clear, we are only talking about legal ownership of the IANA marks and registration of the domain name. Neither the marks nor the domain name are needed, in your words, "to move the IFO." New marks and new domain names are created every day. In addition, your opinion is not supported by the historical record beyond just the trademark history, nor the sound trademark legal principles which Greg Shatan expounded upon, at length, yesterday on this list. Since you have played the "Jon Postel card," I will remind you that Jon was employed by the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), a unit of the University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering, from March, 1977, until his death on October 16, 1998. Beyond just the legal issues, I think it is pretty clear what Jon Postel wanted, since during his tenure at USC-ISI he also served as a Trustee of the Internet Society and on the IAB, yet Jon never asserted legal ownership of the IANA marks by any entity other than USC, and it was his intent that ICANN become the legal owner of the marks. If Vint Cerf or Steve Crocker disagree with this, I would obviously defer to their opinions. I would also note that your recall of history is deficient--what Jon also wanted to do was clarify that creation of new gTLDs was not controlled by Network Solutions--by that reasoning, ICANN, the creator of new gTLDs, should continue to hold the property Jon wanted it to have. Finally, beyond the problematic legal reasons pointed out by Greg yesterday, in the IETF Trust holding legal ownership of the IANA marks, I would note that the sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust, according to its website, is only the IETF, not the global multistakeholder community. As a member of the global multistakeholder community I have a real problem with that, as I do not see why it is in the best interests of the names community nor the global multistakeholder community, for ICANN to transfer legal ownership of trademarks and a domain name registration to an unaccountable outside third party. I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles agreed upon. Sorry if my tone sounds harsh, I do not intend that--I very much respect and enjoy hearing your opinions Milton, even when I disagree. Below is part of the New York Times obituary for Jon Postel which I ran across in preparing this post. Best regards, John Poole Jonathan B. Postel, Who Helped to Create and Administer the Internet, Is Dead at 55 - NYTimes.com <http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/18/us/jonathan-b-postel-who-helped-to-create-...>: "... Dr. Postel assiduously avoided conflicts of interest. In 1995, as the Internet was growing into a commercial business, a reporter asked him why he had repeatedly turned down opportunities to pursue wealth. He replied that starting a company to profit from his activities would have amounted to what he called a ''violation of public trust.''" On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
...
Milton, Perhaps you missed a few emails while you were asleep (which I begrudge no one in this process), but I do believe that the discussion that Alan and I had last evening and night addressed the separability issue. So there's certainly been no "concession." As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context. (As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.) John Poole has replied separately, so I won't pile on. I will just say that the assignment from USC to ICANN (as the home of IANA) made sense then and it makes sense now. The assignment wasn't executed until 18 months after Jon Postel died, so this was well after any assumption that ICANN was going to have Jon Postel involved. The fact that ICANN has evolved so that policy has become predominant (at least in terms of overall resources, perhaps not necessarily in actual importance), does not make ICANN's relationship to IANA any different than it was in 2000. I'm not suggesting that we can avoid the issue of harmonizing our views (on this and other things) with the other operational communities. What I was suggesting is that our view in this proposal should be what we think makes the most sense. It's perfectly appropriate for the three operational communities to start a discussion about this with their separate views -- indeed, we did not ask the other communities to change the views in their proposals to align with ours. We will achieve alignment, but not because we try to fit in, like the new kid in town; rather it will be because of larger common goals, goodwill and dialogue between the communities. We shouldn't start that dialogue negotiating against ourselves. Finally, the only thing that is driving me are the merits, and consistency with the general principles we agreed to -- one of which was to keep things as they are unless there were significant reasons for change. Greg On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
*From:* john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] *On Behalf Of *John Poole *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)— https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
I am grateful for the active discussion and look forward to open and transparent dialog with the other SO’s, in particular the CRISP folks on the attributes of the organization(s) which will hold the marks. I believe Jari’s suggestions as a roadmap for forward movement is sound. that said, USC did not have a wide selection of options at the time. The IETF trust did not yet exist for one. manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 11June2015Thursday, at 15:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton,
Perhaps you missed a few emails while you were asleep (which I begrudge no one in this process), but I do believe that the discussion that Alan and I had last evening and night addressed the separability issue. So there's certainly been no "concession." As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context. (As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.)
John Poole has replied separately, so I won't pile on. I will just say that the assignment from USC to ICANN (as the home of IANA) made sense then and it makes sense now. The assignment wasn't executed until 18 months after Jon Postel died, so this was well after any assumption that ICANN was going to have Jon Postel involved. The fact that ICANN has evolved so that policy has become predominant (at least in terms of overall resources, perhaps not necessarily in actual importance), does not make ICANN's relationship to IANA any different than it was in 2000.
I'm not suggesting that we can avoid the issue of harmonizing our views (on this and other things) with the other operational communities. What I was suggesting is that our view in this proposal should be what we think makes the most sense. It's perfectly appropriate for the three operational communities to start a discussion about this with their separate views -- indeed, we did not ask the other communities to change the views in their proposals to align with ours. We will achieve alignment, but not because we try to fit in, like the new kid in town; rather it will be because of larger common goals, goodwill and dialogue between the communities. We shouldn't start that dialogue negotiating against ourselves.
Finally, the only thing that is driving me are the merits, and consistency with the general principles we agreed to -- one of which was to keep things as they are unless there were significant reasons for change.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
From: john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] On Behalf Of John Poole Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)—https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:
I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message----- As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context.
This strikes me as a purely rhetorical retort with no substantive content. Separability is not a "tail" but a fundamental accountability mechanism and it is unclear what you think the "dog" is here. You'd need to explain how PTI owning something rather than just using it is more important than separability, and you haven't done that.
(As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.)
This is really, really unpersuasive. You're saying it would be easier to take the marks away from an entity that owns them than it would be for a higher-level entity (IETF Trust) to shift their use from one IFO to another. Sorry, not buying that. I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another. This means that the IPR associated with IANA needs to be held in a place that is independent of any IFO. I think that's what it means to the other operational communities too.
Hi, I believe that I support the principle of separability as much as most. That is why I believe the intellectual property and the domain name should remain with the only organization whch will have repsonsiblities to all the communities (albeit some indirectly thought the parent company), i.e., PTI. I just do not see any sense in turning it over to a trust that has fiduciary responsibility to the IETF solely. avri On 13-Jun-15 12:06, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context. This strikes me as a purely rhetorical retort with no substantive content. Separability is not a "tail" but a fundamental accountability mechanism and it is unclear what you think the "dog" is here. You'd need to explain how PTI owning something rather than just using it is more important than separability, and you haven't done that.
(As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.) This is really, really unpersuasive. You're saying it would be easier to take the marks away from an entity that owns them than it would be for a higher-level entity (IETF Trust) to shift their use from one IFO to another. Sorry, not buying that.
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another. This means that the IPR associated with IANA needs to be held in a place that is independent of any IFO. I think that's what it means to the other operational communities too.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Why would it be any more advantageous to move to PTI than leaving it where it is currently is? As already mentioned on other list, I don't see any sensible reason for doing that, hence I disagree; PTI is not independent of ICANN neither is it a known and tested entity as at today. As far as our proposal is concerned PTI is a glorified ICANN department and I don't think dealing with the child would be more assuring than dealing directly with the parent. However there has been indication that there may be a future with divided IFO by communities, and continued access to the trademarks/domain as present would need to be ensured. This is the only reason I would support moving it to IETF trust especially if we don't think those requirement can be legally ensured with the current owner. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Jun 2015 18:45, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I believe that I support the principle of separability as much as most. That is why I believe the intellectual property and the domain name should remain with the only organization whch will have repsonsiblities to all the communities (albeit some indirectly thought the parent company), i.e., PTI.
I just do not see any sense in turning it over to a trust that has fiduciary responsibility to the IETF solely.
avri
On 13-Jun-15 12:06, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context. This strikes me as a purely rhetorical retort with no substantive content. Separability is not a "tail" but a fundamental accountability mechanism and it is unclear what you think the "dog" is here. You'd need to explain how PTI owning something rather than just using it is more important than separability, and you haven't done that.
(As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.) This is really, really unpersuasive. You're saying it would be easier to take the marks away from an entity that owns them than it would be for a higher-level entity (IETF Trust) to shift their use from one IFO to another. Sorry, not buying that.
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another. This means that the IPR associated with IANA needs to be held in a place that is independent of any IFO. I think that's what it means to the other operational communities too.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 04:06:50PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another.
Milton and I certainly don't agree about everything, but in this we are in lock step. The basic point of the ability of a community's ability to decide to change operators is, at bottom, the only real mechanism a community has to ensure that its oversight of the function is performed. That means that each operational community needs the effective ability to move its operations, even if the others do not. Having reflected on this for a couple days, it occurs to me that the transfer of the mark and domain name to PTI could be a problem in a somewhat different way. Suppose that at least one non-names operational community elects to stay with ICANN as opposed to contracting directly with PTI. ICANN will then be in the awkward position of contracting for a function without actually having guaranteed permanent access to the domain name or trademark or both. The proposal that transfers these assets to an independent trust (in the actual case, the IETF Trust, but my impression is that that was just because it happened already to exist) has the presumed advantage that everyone involved in any IANA work automatically gets access to the trademark and domain name. (I am assuming that the IETF Trust was also picked because of its history of holding such assets under quite permissive licenses, as a matter of policy.) This seems to be a dimension of the topic that needs serious contemplation, since the other operational communities could easily decide that if the terms on the IANA mark or the domain name are unfavourable, then they ought not to be accepted. Such a decision could be bad for the transition, or could result in IANA fragmentation when it is least desirable. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hi, I tend to look at it much more simply. ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets. The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers. If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it. avri On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
*From:*john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] *On Behalf Of *John Poole *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)—https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote:
I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Apart from iana.org, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance. I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
*From:*john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] *On Behalf Of *John Poole *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)—
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-...
which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
“… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …”
US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote:
I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to:
1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary.
2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption.
In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary.
But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may be internalized to PTI at some future point. But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that pertain to the IFO to the PTI. avri On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Apart from iana.org <http://iana.org>, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance.
I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of > its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. > And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP > team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. > > > > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to > that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, > and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. > > > > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but > then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the > proposals of the other operational communities. > > > > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the > arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed > on. > > > > > > *From:*john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com> [mailto:john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 > > > > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: > > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this > issue (IANA marks): > > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern > California)—https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... > which states in 2.1: > > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and > interest in and to the following: > > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA > logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and > > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to > the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright > Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and > Copyright Assignment")." > > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is > specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf > > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says > that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." > > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: > > RFC 1060 --March 1990: > > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. > > Joyce K. Reynolds > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > USC - Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” > > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of > March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC > (“entire interest”) to ICANN > http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752... > > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA > marks in 2001 and 2007. > > Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. > > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these > property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. > > Best regards, > John Poole > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> wrote: > > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also > technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has uses > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia > all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at > some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use > the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the > then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The best > we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for the > IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into > code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, > there can be a contingent license that automatically springs > into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > > wrote: > > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the > solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to > defend it if necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for > the immediate future, because it will, either directly or > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and > those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to > defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also > satisfy both principles... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Avri, Your point on administrative functions is absolutely consistent with my understanding. We have discussed having some form of "services agreement" whereby ICANN would provide various "back-office" and enterprise-wide services (such as HR, etc.) to PTI. It has not been the view of the CWG that PTI needs to be a completely self-sufficient, hermetically sealed entity. That would be economic folly. You don't need to have a full-time HR person (much less, an HR staff) for 12 or so people, for example. Greg On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may be internalized to PTI at some future point.
But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that pertain to the IFO to the PTI.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Apart from iana.org <http://iana.org>, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance.
I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of > its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an
IFO.
> And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the
CRISP
> team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. > > > > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer
to
> that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of
it,
> and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. > > > > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities –
but
> then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the > proposals of the other operational communities. > > > > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of
the
> arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed > on. > > > > > > *From:*john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com> [mailto:john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> > *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L
Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 > > > > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: > > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this > issue (IANA marks): > > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern > California)—
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-...
> which states in 2.1: > > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and > interest in and to the following: > > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the
IANA
> logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and > > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant
to
> the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright > Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and > Copyright Assignment")." > > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is > specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf > > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says > that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." > > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned
Numbers
> Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: > > RFC 1060 --March 1990: > > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. > > Joyce K. Reynolds > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > USC - Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” > > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date
of
> March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC > (“entire interest”) to ICANN >
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
> > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA > marks in 2001 and 2007. > > Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. > > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these > property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. > > Best regards, > John Poole > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> wrote: > > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also > technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has uses > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia > all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at > some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to
use
> the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of
the
> then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The
best
> we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for
the
> IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built
into
> code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, > there can be a contingent license that automatically
springs
> into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > > wrote: > > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever
the
> solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to > defend it if necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for > the immediate future, because it will, either directly or > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and > those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to > defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also > satisfy both principles... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
Your point on administrative functions is absolutely consistent with my understanding. We have discussed having some form of "services agreement" whereby ICANN would provide various "back-office" and enterprise-wide services (such as HR, etc.) to PTI.
Well we have discussed a lot Greg and its what currently exist in our proposal that matters. I havn't seen the section of our proposal that mean what you have stated above.
It has not been the view of the CWG that PTI needs to be a completely self-sufficient, hermetically sealed entity. That would be economic folly.
Interesting view Greg, but we seem to have built our proposal on that except for where it has to do with cost which we ofcourse push back to the big guy. (ref: transfer of the IANA trademark et all)
You don't need to have a full-time HR person (much less, an HR staff) for 12 or so people, for example.
Well maybe not, i guess this will depend on the scope of PTI Manager/Board over the PTI employees. Regards
Greg
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may be internalized to PTI at some future point.
But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that pertain to the IFO to the PTI.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Apart from iana.org <http://iana.org>, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance.
I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control
of
> its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an
IFO.
> And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the
CRISP
> team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. > > > > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer
to
> that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of
it,
> and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. > > > > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities –
but
> then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the > proposals of the other operational communities. > > > > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of
the
> arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed > on. > > > > > > *From:*john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com> [mailto:john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org
> *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L
Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 > > > > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: > > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this > issue (IANA marks): > > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern > California)—
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-...
> which states in 2.1: > > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title
and
> interest in and to the following: > > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the
IANA
> logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and > > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant
to
> the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and
Copyright
> Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and > Copyright Assignment")." > > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is > specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf > > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174
says
> that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." > > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned
Numbers
> Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: > > RFC 1060 --March 1990: > > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. > > Joyce K. Reynolds > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > USC - Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” > > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date
of
> March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC > (“entire interest”) to ICANN >
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
> > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the
IANA
> marks in 2001 and 2007. > > Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. > > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that
these
> property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. > > Best regards, > John Poole > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> wrote: > > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also > technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has uses > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it
ia
> all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split
at
> some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to
use
> the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of
the
> then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The
best
> we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for
the
> IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built
into
> code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, > there can be a contingent license that automatically
springs
> into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > > wrote: > > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever
the
> solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to > defend it if necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN
for
> the immediate future, because it will, either directly or > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF
and
> those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to > defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also > satisfy both principles... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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 !
Seun, As you can see by comments below I disagree with some of your conclusions. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 2:31 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Avri, Your point on administrative functions is absolutely consistent with my understanding. We have discussed having some form of "services agreement" whereby ICANN would provide various "back-office" and enterprise-wide services (such as HR, etc.) to PTI. Well we have discussed a lot Greg and its what currently exist in our proposal that matters. I havn't seen the section of our proposal that mean what you have stated above. [Chuck Gomes] I don’t think it is our task to define how ICANN will manage its own affiliate except as specifically related to performance of the IANA services. Regarding the affiliate model, I have assume that it would allow for cost efficiencies with regard to support services such as human resources, finance, etc., but I don’t think our charter requires us to define how those would occur. Normally the parent company would do that. I do think that as we continue to refine the PTI budget that these kind of issues will surface and will be better defined by ICANN and reviewed by the CWG as we get closer to implementation. It has not been the view of the CWG that PTI needs to be a completely self-sufficient, hermetically sealed entity. That would be economic folly. Interesting view Greg, but we seem to have built our proposal on that except for where it has to do with cost which we ofcourse push back to the big guy. (ref: transfer of the IANA trademark et all) [Chuck Gomes] I disagree with this assumption. I don’t think our proposal assumes that PTI would be self-sufficient in all areas. Where does our proposal indicate that? I agree with you that PTI must be self-sufficient in performing the IANA services but it doesn’t follow from that that PTI needs to provide its own administrative, financial and personnel services. That’s really in ICANN’s court to decide and I would like to think that they would do it in the most cost-efficient and effective manner. You don't need to have a full-time HR person (much less, an HR staff) for 12 or so people, for example. Well maybe not, i guess this will depend on the scope of PTI Manager/Board over the PTI employees. Regards Greg On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may be internalized to PTI at some future point. But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that pertain to the IFO to the PTI. avri On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Apart from iana.org<http://iana.org> <http://iana.org>, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance.
I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of > its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. > And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP > team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. > > > > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to > that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, > and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. > > > > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but > then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the > proposals of the other operational communities. > > > > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the > arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed > on. > > > > > > *From:*john@expri.com<mailto:john@expri.com> <mailto:john@expri.com<mailto:john@expri.com>> [mailto:john@expri.com<mailto:john@expri.com> <mailto:john@expri.com<mailto:john@expri.com>>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> > *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 > > > > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: > > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this > issue (IANA marks): > > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern > California)—https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-... > which states in 2.1: > > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and > interest in and to the following: > > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA > logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and > > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to > the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright > Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and > Copyright Assignment")." > > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is > specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf > > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says > that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." > > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: > > RFC 1060 --March 1990: > > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. > > Joyce K. Reynolds > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > USC - Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” > > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of > March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC > (“entire interest”) to ICANN > http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752... > > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA > marks in 2001 and 2007. > > Domain name iana.org<http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. > > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these > property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. > > Best regards, > John Poole > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>>> wrote: > > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also > technical issues. Currently iana.org<http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has uses > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia > all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at > some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use > the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the > then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org<http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The best > we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org<http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for the > IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into > code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, > there can be a contingent license that automatically springs > into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> > > wrote: > > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the > solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to > defend it if necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for > the immediate future, because it will, either directly or > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and > those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to > defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also > satisfy both principles... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
--- 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> <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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Chuck, Well said, and I agree completely. Greg On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
As you can see by comments below I disagree with some of your conclusions.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 2:31 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
Your point on administrative functions is absolutely consistent with my understanding. We have discussed having some form of "services agreement" whereby ICANN would provide various "back-office" and enterprise-wide services (such as HR, etc.) to PTI.
Well we have discussed a lot Greg and its what currently exist in our proposal that matters. I havn't seen the section of our proposal that mean what you have stated above.
*[Chuck Gomes] I don’t think it is our task to define how ICANN will manage its own affiliate except as specifically related to performance of the IANA services. Regarding the affiliate model, I have assume that it would allow for cost efficiencies with regard to support services such as human resources, finance, etc., but I don’t think our charter requires us to define how those would occur. Normally the parent company would do that. I do think that as we continue to refine the PTI budget that these kind of issues will surface and will be better defined by ICANN and reviewed by the CWG as we get closer to implementation.*
It has not been the view of the CWG that PTI needs to be a completely self-sufficient, hermetically sealed entity. That would be economic folly.
Interesting view Greg, but we seem to have built our proposal on that except for where it has to do with cost which we ofcourse push back to the big guy. (ref: transfer of the IANA trademark et all)
*[Chuck Gomes] I disagree with this assumption. I don’t think our proposal assumes that PTI would be self-sufficient in all areas. Where does our proposal indicate that? I agree with you that PTI must be self-sufficient in performing the IANA services but it doesn’t follow from that that PTI needs to provide its own administrative, financial and personnel services. That’s really in ICANN’s court to decide and I would like to think that they would do it in the most cost-efficient and effective manner.*
You don't need to have a full-time HR person (much less, an HR staff) for 12 or so people, for example.
Well maybe not, i guess this will depend on the scope of PTI Manager/Board over the PTI employees.
Regards
Greg
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
I think of the ICANN IANA function staff as becoming PTI staff, but I do not think you need to move all of the administrative functions that support that staff as they can be 'outsourced' (or rather remain) with ICANN for as long as PTI is an affiliate. Some, on the other hand may be internalized to PTI at some future point.
But yes, I thought we were talking about transferring the assets that pertain to the IFO to the PTI.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 22:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Apart from iana.org <http://iana.org>, there is IANA trademark itself and based on your response I presume you support a transfer of that as well. So we may also simply refer to the new IANA staff as PTI staff and not ICANN staff since they are part of the transfer and since we (the CWG) want a wholely standalone/separated IFO. That would also mean more department will need to spring up within PTI, like the HR for instance.
I hope we are thinking about all these complications, or maybe it's not as complicated as i think. Perhaps we can just hope that the other 2 communities will accept and move on.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 11 Jun 2015 23:26, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org
<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I tend to look at it much more simply.
ICANN has the domain name now. it is one of the IANA assets.
The Name and Numbers communities have chosen to remain ICANN's customers. There is no reason to transfer ICANN/IANA assets to one of ICANN's customers.
If ICANN is transferring all of the IANA assets to PTI, then the domain name registrations should go with it.
avri
On 11-Jun-15 12:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. > I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, > as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks > and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN > offers a royalty-free license – that still puts ICANN in control of > its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. > And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP > team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and > they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks. > > > > With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the > trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in > your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute > was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of > the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the > numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history > relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to > that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark > records reveals is something that we already know and which has no > bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was > created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, > and that ICANN would “be” the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, > that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the > IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation > now and the TM arrangements need to adjust. > > > > I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because > our remit does not extend to the other operational communities – but > then insists on doing something that directly contradicts the > proposals of the other operational communities. > > > > I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is > certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the > arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed > on. > > > > > > *From:*john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com>
[mailto:john@expri.com <mailto:john@expri.com>] *On Behalf Of *John Poole > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM > *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
> *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L
Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 > > > > CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: > > Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this > issue (IANA marks): > > USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern > California)—
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-...
> which states in 2.1: > > 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > > 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and > transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and > interest in and to the following: > > (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending > registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law > service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" > common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the
IANA
> logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service > Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and > > (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, > distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise > use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant
to
> the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright > Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and > Copyright Assignment")." > > The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is > specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government > in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf > > Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or > claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to > the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says > that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed > a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." > > The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned
Numbers
> Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: > > RFC 1060 --March 1990: > > “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or > application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, > protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. > > Joyce K. Reynolds > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > USC - Information Sciences Institute > 4676 Admiralty Way > Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” > > US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date
of
> March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern > California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 > Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC > (“entire interest”) to ICANN >
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=752...
> > ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA > marks in 2001 and 2007. >
> Domain name iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has a "created date" of > 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. > > The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these > property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their > use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. > > Best regards, > John Poole > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> wrote: > > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also > technical issues. Currently iana.org <http://iana.org> <http://iana.org> has uses > within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia > all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at > some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to
use
> the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups > has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of
the
> then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org> name resolves to if there is a split. The
best
> we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first > discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org <http://iana.org> > <http://iana.org>, and it would probably more disruptive for
the
> IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built
into
> code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the > agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should > require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use > the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, > there can be a contingent license that automatically
springs
> into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> > > wrote: > > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and > in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever
the
> solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to > defend it if necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three > users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the > users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the > IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all > necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for > the immediate future, because it will, either directly or > through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and > those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody > principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to > defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also > satisfy both principles... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Actaully, I did address what the SAC069 called Severability - the case where the three parts of IANA are no longer performed by the same entity. I said that depending on who owns the trademark and the domain name, some work would have to be done, but it would vary based on the specific details. And I said that agreements post-transition would have to allow for it. For the record, ICANN will not JUST be the IFO after transition. It will be the IANA Steward, at the very least for the names function, regardless of who performs the names IFO. That puts it in a unique position, and one at least as stable and trustable as any other possible holder that has been named. And probably in the best position to be able to defend the TM if it is mis-used. Alan At 11/06/2015 12:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I see that neither Alan nor Greg has addressed the separability issue. I will take that as a concession that it cannot be answered. There is, as I pointed out twice, a contradiction between ICANN owning the marks and the ability to move the IFO. That is true whether or not ICANN offers a royalty-free license â that still puts ICANN in control of its use rather than the technical community and ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own those marks.
With respect to that point, John Poole, I am afraid your review of the trademark record is not relevant to this controversy. Just to fill in your historical record a bit more, USC Information Sciences Institute was the institutional home of Jon Postel, who was working on behalf of the IETF and was one of the developers of both the IP protocol and the numbers and names registry. So if you want to make that history relevant, you would have to note that his position was far closer to that of the current IETF than to ICANN. Indeed, the All the trademark records reveals is something that we already know and which has no bearing on what we are doing now: which is, that when ICANN was created, it was assumed that Postel would move to become part of it, and that ICANN would âbeâ the IANA. But as I have explained elsewhere, that did not happen; ICANN became the DNS policy making entity and the IANA was a small appendage to it. We are in a very different situation now and the TM arrangements need to adjust.
I am amused by the fact that Greg says we can avoid this issue because our remit does not extend to the other operational communities but then insists on doing somethingg that directly contradicts the proposals of the other operational communities.
I am wondering what really is driving this concept because it is certainly not consensus within this CWG, it is not the merits of the arguments, it is not consistency with the general principles we agreed on.
From: john@expri.com [mailto:john@expri.com] On Behalf Of John Poole Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:17 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Alan Greenberg; Greg Shatan; Andrew Sullivan; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton:
Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks):
USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)<https://www.icann.org/resoources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02-25-en which states in 2.1:
2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following:
(a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and
(b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")."
The University of Southern California ICANN Transition Agreement is speciffically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf
Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..."
The first reference to the name "IANA" or âInternet Assigned Numbers Authorityâ in the RFC series is in RFC 1060:
RFC 1060 --March 1990:
â current information can be obtained from the Innternet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment.
Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 â
US Trademark Registrration for IANA shows an original âFiling Date of March 21, 1997â by âOwner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,â subsequently assigned by USC (âentire interestâ) to ICANN <http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386>http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75261386
ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007.
Domain name <http://iana.org>iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN.
The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party.
Best regards, John Poole
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Greg, not quite.
You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently <http://iana.org>iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic.
But the problems will be there regardless of where the <http://iana.org>iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances.
And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using <http://iana.org>iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive.
Alan
At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Alan,
You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that automatically springs into place when the customer separates.
I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to: 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if necessary. 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with no user disruption. In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary. But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both principles...
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:15:53PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
For the record, ICANN will not JUST be the IFO after transition. It will be the IANA Steward, at the very least for the names function, regardless of who performs the names IFO.
This is interesting; I would say that ICANN will be the IANA steward at the very _most_ for the names function post-transition. The RIRs and the IETF already have perfectly servicable stewardship functions for their respective registries, and I don't think that needs to change. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
For the record, ICANN will not JUST be the IFO after transition. It will be the IANA Steward, at the very least for the names function, regardless of who performs the names IFO. That puts it in a unique position, and one at least as stable and trustable as any other possible holder that has been named. And probably in the best position to be able to defend the TM if it is mis-used. ICANN is _not_ "the IANA steward." ICANN is the steward and policy maker ONLY for the names function. The iana.org domain and the IANA mark apply to all three operational communities.
Hi, Wheras PTI (lest we forget Post Transition _IANA_) will still be the IFO for all 3. At least until that fateful day. One many believe will never happen. avri On 13-Jun-15 10:16, Milton L Mueller wrote:
For the record, ICANN will not JUST be the IFO after transition. It will be the IANA Steward, at the very least for the names function, regardless of who performs the names IFO. That puts it in a unique position, and one at least as stable and trustable as any other possible holder that has been named. And probably in the best position to be able to defend the TM if it is mis-used.
ICANN is _/not/_ “the IANA steward.” ICANN is the steward and policy maker ONLY for the names function. The iana.org domain and the IANA mark apply to all three operational communities.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
CW Lists -
David Conrad -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jari Arkko -
John Poole -
manning -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji