[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
nurani at netnod.se
Fri Jul 3 08:20:16 CEST 2015
FYI. The CWG’s response to the ICG request concerning the IPRs.
2 July 2015
Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed
In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with regard to the IANA trademark.
In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the <http://iana.org/> iana.org domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work. Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the <http://iana.org/> iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed.
Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so far as these may relate to how the use of the iana.org or IANA trademark impact the work of the other two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.
In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July.
We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions.
Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: 19 June 2015 16:44
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract."  Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations.
During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term.
Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name  should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. 
Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well.
The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.
Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG
 CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132
 Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG
> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP