[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Sun Dec 21 15:07:08 CET 2014


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: dimanche, 21. décembre 2014 06:05
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: ianaxfer at nro.net; Mwendwa Kivuva
>Subject: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft
>
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>On 20 Dec 2014 21:51, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>> >Sent: samedi, 20. décembre 2014 17:12
>> >To: Richard Hill
>> >Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva; ianaxfer at nro.net
>> >Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First >Draft

SSNIP

>Domain name yes based on the simple fact that one needs to provide contact
> information when registering a domain and it made absolute sense for that
> contact to be ICANN's as the IANA operator. 

There is more to it than that.  A domain name is registered by a specific person/entity, who then has the right to use that domain name.

>I don't think ICANN will refuse to allow change of contact information once
> it is determined no longer to be worthy of operating IANA. 

Maybe, maybe not. The domain name might have commercial value.  If it does, the ICANN Board might feel that it was their fiduciary duty to receive monetary compensation from anybody else who wants to use the domain name.

>As to the trademark on the name IANA, perhaps it will be good if you refer
> me to any writeup that days something in the line of the following "....IANA
> is a trademark registered to ICANN" otherwise I would expect most writeup
> to be in the form of "....As the operator of IANA functions, IANA is the 
>registered trademark to ICANN"

It's not a question of "writeup".  It is a matter of fact that ICANN owns the US registered trademark IANA, see:

  http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:5eh6id.2.7 

  http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:5eh6id.2.11 

>If the former is the case then maybe there may be something to worry about,

As you can see above, the former is indeed the case.

> however if the later is the case (which I think it is) then I think what would
> apply with the domain name will also apply here is a move is required.
> Everything related to IANA function simply moves, 

Again, only if ICANN agrees to the move.  And ICANN might request monetary compensation for such a move, unless the new contract specifies othewise.

>I don't think listing the items one by one is necessary for a layman reason
> of not forgetting an item :-)

It is not a matter of forgetting an item.  It is a matter of specifying now the conditions under which ICANN would agree to allow another entity to use the IANA mark and domain name for the IANA functions.


SNIP

>> It is not only empowered to do that as the moment.
>> It will also be empowered to do that in the future,
>>
>I think you read that incorrectly, what I meant is that it's empowerment is
> presently from the NTIA contract (which is simply the ability to operate
> the functions). By your statement above, it seem you are implying that even
> the current NTIA contract does not allow the transfer?

No.  Indeed ICANN the NTIA contract empowers ICANN, at present, to perform the IANA function. That contract has some provisions regarding intellectual property.

ICANN's ownership of the mark IANA and the domain name IANA.ORG are independent of the NTIA contract.

So, unless a new contract specifies something about intellectual property, ICANN will have full control over that intellectual property.  Which, again, might result in ICANN requesting monetary compensation if the IANA function is transferred, in the future, to an entity other than ICANN.

>> >
>> >Actually in a scenario where its a community that pulls out, i think it may be
>> > neater to not even use the name IANA and iana.org any longer.
>>
>> Again, that's a different discussion.
>
>Well maybe, but its to emphasis the fact that this does not have to be cast
> and stone. It should be flexible. 

Correct.  In my opinion, the best way to ensure flexibility is to work out now what happens to the intellectual property if the IANA function is transferred to an entity other than ICANN.

>The crisp proposal in it's current form has indicated it empowers ICANN
> to operate numbers related functions and ICANN will no longer operate those
> functions if there is a bridge in agreement IMO that's all that matters.

I disagree.  I think that what happens to the intellectual property also matters.

> At the bridge of crossing to another operator, it's the ultimate decision
> of this community to determine what it wants to carry along to another operator... 

Not if there is nothing in the new contract regarding intellectual property rights.

As noted above, ICANN owns the trademark and the domain name, so it has no obligation to let anybody else use them, unless some obligations are specified in the new contract.  For example, the new contract could specify that ICANN would allow a new operator to use the mark and the domain name free of charge in order to perform the IP addressing part of the IANA function.

SNIP




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list