Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org" <soac-infoalert@icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.olive@icann.org');> www.icann.org
Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 F: +1 (312) 558-5700 Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.olive@icann.org');> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:
Greg,
Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed.
Best,
Paul
*Paul D. McGrady Jr.*
*Partner *
*Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice *
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 (312) 558-5963
F: +1 (312) 558-5700
Bio <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email <pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
[image: Winston & Strawn LLP]
*From:* ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM *To:* IPC-GNSO *Subject:* [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive@icann.org> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org" <soac-infoalert@icann.org>
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul
Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212
Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611>
Mobile: +90.533.341.6550
Email: david.olive@icann.org
www.icann.org
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? [cid:image002.gif@01D0D9DE.12B281C0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> [Winston & Strawn LLP] From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso
Jeff, I have another fundamental question for you -- why can't the the IETF or some other entity which receives the transfer offer the services under a completely different trademark and domain name? Apart from rebranding issues do we need to keep the IANA mark? Whether we should keep it is different from whether we must keep it. Best regards, Clark ________________________________ From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:32:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso * * * This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. Disclaimer Version RS.US.201.407.01
Another good question. Sent from my iPad
On Aug 18, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Lackert, Clark W. <CLackert@ReedSmith.com> wrote:
Jeff,
I have another fundamental question for you -- why can't the the IETF or some other entity which receives the transfer offer the services under a completely different trademark and domain name? Apart from rebranding issues do we need to keep the IANA mark? Whether we should keep it is different from whether we must keep it.
Best regards, Clark
________________________________ From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:32:50 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
All,
The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise.
But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself.
I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about?
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote:
Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right?
<image002.gif>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>
From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal.
The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind).
Greg
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg,
Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed.
Best, Paul
Paul D. McGrady Jr.
Partner
Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice
Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963>
F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700>
Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com>
<image003.jpg>
From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>>
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en
Sent from my iPhone
David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.201.407.01
Hi Jeff, I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANA's efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA's future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA's performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You can't separate the mark from the goodwill and you can't license without quality control standards. Trademarks aren't patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul - seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Paul, Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on past performance and industry norms. It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. I hope that helps. Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff, I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANA’s efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA’s future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA’s performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You can’t separate the mark from the goodwill and you can’t license without quality control standards. Trademarks aren’t patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. However, that won't absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and the QC's have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan published for public comment before it happens. From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Paul, Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on past performance and industry norms. It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. I hope that helps. Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff, I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANA's efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA's future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA's performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You can't separate the mark from the goodwill and you can't license without quality control standards. Trademarks aren't patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul - seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
And the plan should include what actions will be taken when 3rd parties use the mark without permission. Ultimately budget will also need to be set aside for such enforcement by whoever is doing it. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Description: Greenberg Traurig] From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:54 AM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. However, that won't absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and the QC's have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan published for public comment before it happens. From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com]<mailto:[mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com]> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Paul, Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on past performance and industry norms. It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. I hope that helps. Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff, I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANA's efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA's future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA's performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You can't separate the mark from the goodwill and you can't license without quality control standards. Trademarks aren't patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com>> wrote: Good question by Paul - seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com<mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=AwMFAw...> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700<tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> Bio<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-2...> | VCard<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_9...> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> | winston.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=AwMFAw...> <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno...> Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349<tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212<tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611<tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550<tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=AwMFAw&...> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org<mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
Understood. That is more of a question for the CCWG, so I will throw this over to Greg now. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20 AM To: PMcGrady@winston.com; jeff.neuman@valideus.com Cc: ipc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN And the plan should include what actions will be taken when 3rd parties use the mark without permission. Ultimately budget will also need to be set aside for such enforcement by whoever is doing it. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:54 AM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. However, that wont absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and the QCs have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan published for public comment before it happens. From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] <mailto:[mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com]> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Paul, Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on past performance and industry norms. It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. I hope that helps. Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> > wrote: Hi Jeff, I dont think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANAs efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANAs future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANAs performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You cant separate the mark from the goodwill and you cant license without quality control standards. Trademarks arent patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > wrote: Good question by Paul seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=AwMFA w&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=q FXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=kEWBpAq3qdxCNRUkWXqprchv3kGOkhu f17KWa3b6Gfs&e=> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> > wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 <tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700 <tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who- 2Dwe-2Dare_attorneys_mcgrady-2Dpaul-2Dd.html&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXw Xw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPV J4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=_M5fyx52XV3gVVkig4tvg81ESTOZb4_3ZNxN5bCq2gQ&e=> Bio | <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_ 996.vcf&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_O LPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=oDmTE_UnG5aTcnWJ tBU3gW4y4YdEbe30pwJ4_rWVyL0&e=> VCard | <mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> Email | <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=AwMFA w&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=q FXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=mZIMM1UxyrYszwOxQ206WCePpoJiLlC XN6wOL82NN0I&e=> winston.com <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> " <soac-infoalert@icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann ouncement-2D2015-2D08-2D15-2Den&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOG y17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5u UJMQc&s=DW25W2bXFDi4OZhi8kvFBL5oHrKZQMveBptcsE-jstQ&e=> Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 <tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=AwMFAw &c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qF XrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=CEYeLRWbDNCaiCz_3veYvZtNkhXNPfWG ItlVGjZdM_w&e=> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org <mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_ipc-2Dgnso&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV -DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=_mhTD ilOghYWUhy0qJsGLzUUB_BvEnZ455PhNxWrb_s&e=> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate such information.
Quick Correction I think the SLEs we have been working on may be for the CWG as opposed to the CCWG. It gets incredibly confusing. So all references in my emails below to CCWG should really be CWG. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:42 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; PMcGrady@winston.com Cc: ipc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Understood. That is more of a question for the CCWG, so I will throw this over to Greg now. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20 AM To: PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> ; jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Cc: ipc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN And the plan should include what actions will be taken when 3rd parties use the mark without permission. Ultimately budget will also need to be set aside for such enforcement by whoever is doing it. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:54 AM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. However, that wont absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and the QCs have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan published for public comment before it happens. From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] <mailto:[mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com]> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Paul, Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on past performance and industry norms. It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. I hope that helps. Best regards, Jeff Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> > wrote: Hi Jeff, I dont think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will the Trust ensure that IANAs efforts are sufficient. With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANAs future performance to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout the term of the license back arrangement? If IANAs performance under an un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license to do so? The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental ignorance of how trademarks work. You cant separate the mark from the goodwill and you cant license without quality control standards. Trademarks arent patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN Board. So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be accountable to? Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN All, The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have the expertise. But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns we are worried about? Sent from my iPad On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrlaw.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> > wrote: Good question by Paul seems this would require an amendment to the terms of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality control provisions in the license, right? <image002.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@LRRLaw.com <mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=AwMFA w&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=q FXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=kEWBpAq3qdxCNRUkWXqprchv3kGOkhu f17KWa3b6Gfs&e=> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: IPC-GNSO Subject: Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). Greg On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com> > wrote: Greg, Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a very powerful position, indeed. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady Jr. Partner Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 D: +1 (312) 558-5963 <tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5963> F: +1 (312) 558-5700 <tel:%2B1%20%28312%29%20558-5700> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who- 2Dwe-2Dare_attorneys_mcgrady-2Dpaul-2Dd.html&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXw Xw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPV J4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=_M5fyx52XV3gVVkig4tvg81ESTOZb4_3ZNxN5bCq2gQ&e=> Bio | <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_ 996.vcf&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_O LPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=oDmTE_UnG5aTcnWJ tBU3gW4y4YdEbe30pwJ4_rWVyL0&e=> VCard | <mailto:pmcgrady@winston.com> Email | <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=AwMFA w&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=q FXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=mZIMM1UxyrYszwOxQ206WCePpoJiLlC XN6wOL82NN0I&e=> winston.com <image003.jpg> From: ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM To: IPC-GNSO Subject: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> " <soac-infoalert@icann.org <mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann ouncement-2D2015-2D08-2D15-2Den&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOG y17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5u UJMQc&s=DW25W2bXFDi4OZhi8kvFBL5oHrKZQMveBptcsE-jstQ&e=> Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 <tel:10%2034349> Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 <tel:+90.212.999.6212> Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <tel:+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 <tel:+90.533.341.6550> Email: david.olive@icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=AwMFAw &c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV-DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qF XrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=CEYeLRWbDNCaiCz_3veYvZtNkhXNPfWG ItlVGjZdM_w&e=> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ IPC-GNSO mailing list IPC-GNSO@icann.org <mailto:IPC-GNSO@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l istinfo_ipc-2Dgnso&d=AwMFAw&c=HZc2iMNQt2jZf4ve7hXwXw&r=g-Ut6JOGy17wbmnsYgYhV -DKaEptxc_OLPHqqkf5y_g&m=qFXrnhUOADtruORSmpAEPeLPVJ4obIEpcBqk5uUJMQc&s=_mhTD ilOghYWUhy0qJsGLzUUB_BvEnZ455PhNxWrb_s&e=> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate such information.
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Greg Shatan -
Jeff Neuman -
Lackert, Clark W. -
McGrady, Paul D. -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com