Subject: [Ianaplan] returning to the topic of IANA trademarks and domains

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:03:45 -0700

We have discussed trademarks and domains in the past, and came
to a basic agreement. Meanwhile, the names community has also
indicated that the “IPR in an independent entity” model is acceptable
to them. But the details for any of this are left for implementation phase.
That phase will take place once the overall transition plan goes forward.

The IETF Trust has worked in the background to understand the
situation better, and obviously, if something needs to be done,
ultimately there has to be agreements and concrete actions need
to be taken. But before we are that far, we have to talk about the
overall approach and find a common ground about the implementation
with all three communities.

With this in mind, the Trust has written up a high-level
description of what it believes the approach could be.
We thought that this would be useful for both this WG
as well as for communication with others.

Please see the description below. The Trust would
appreciate any feedback you have. The goal is that
after getting that feedback (and after revision as needed)
we could have a description that can be used in discussing
further implementation steps.

Jari

---

As a part of their transition proposal, the Internet Number
Community stated that it was their preference that the IANA
trademark and iana.org domain would be transferred to an entity
independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and from their
perspective the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this
role.

On 8 February, the ICG asked the IETF and Internet Number Community
to coordinate their transition proposals with regards to the
trademarks and domains. Discussion in the IETF working group
indicated that the proposals can be compatible.

At the request of the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015
asked the IETF Trust whether the Trust would be willing to hold IANA
intellectual property.  Citing Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement
whereby the Trust could hold rights in intellectual property and
domain names relevant to the IETF, the Trustees on 19 February said
they would be willing to hold the IANA intellectual property.  See
http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Trust-Minutes-2015-06-25-01.pdf

At the request of the IETF Chair the IETF Trust has engaged in
discussions with the Internet Number Community about the possibility
of the Trust assuming this responsibility.  The following is some
background of the Trust’s position and an overview of how the role
and responsibilities may be fulfilled.

While this fulfillment is a part of implementation rather than the
ICG proposal currently out for public comment, the IETF Trust wants
to ensure progress on determining those implementation steps. The
Trust is of course only one of the possible ways to satisfy the
requirements from the Internet Number Community. Nevertheless, the
Trust wanted to start by suggesting an overall framework for one way
of satisfying the requirements. There will be a time to discuss the
details, but first it would be good to have an understanding if this
overall framework is something that works for the relevant
communities. This is only an early proposal. Feedback  and
suggestions are very welcome.

The Trust believes it would need to enter into three different types
of agreements to effect the transfer of the IANA intellectual
property (IP) and to enter into licensing arrangements with the IANA
service provider(s).

These agreements include:

1.  An Agreement between ICANN and the IETF Trust transferring the
IANA IP to the IETF Trust

2.  Community Assurance Agreements between the IETF Trust and each
of the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the IANA communities)
regarding the Trust’s commitments to each as further described below, and

3.  Agreement(s) whereby the IETF Trust provides for the use of the
iana.org domain, or a subdomain, and licenses the use of the IANA
trademarks to the IANA service provider(s) selected by the IANA
communities.

The Trustees are open, in principle, to the idea of entering into
these agreements. The Trust understands that each community
would need to follow its own internal processes before entering
into any agreements, or selecting an IANA service provider.

The Community Assurance Agreements with the IANA communities
would establish and recognize the responsibilities for each community
to identify and enter into agreement with their selected service provider,
and for the IETF Trust to provide, update, and revoke licenses as needed to
support these selections.

In order to preserve the value and integrity of the IANA trademarks,
the IETF Trust would maintain, license and monitor the use of the
trademarks.  Trust actions would include enforcement against
unauthorized users and monitoring the quality and uses by the
licensed user(s). The Trust would work with the relevant IANA
communities to address issues involving a licensee before taking
action to maintain the quality of the trademarks.

The exact details of the agreements would be subject to negotiation
among the affected parties.

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:37:57 +0100

Hi Jari,

Thanks for this update, the agreement categories does make sense. That
said,  I think item 2 and 3 are somewhat interrelated and can be achieved
with a single one off signing by each of the operational communities. For
instance the numbers NRO MoU with ICANN for the formation of ASO has 2
attachment (one being the GPDP for instance) but only the main MoU had to
be signed to validate the rest of the branches.

Nevertheless, I recognise the statement is high level and approach of
implementation can be discussed in details later. Overall, it looks good on
paper.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Sep 2015 00:03, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:29:11 +1200

Hi Jari,

This makes complete sense to me.

The following is not a comment on the text but more on how the text
would be "packaged" for public purposes. I think it's quite important to
mention at least two important aspects of the Trust Agreement: that its
purposes "include, but are not limited to, the advancement of education and public interest by acquiring, holding, maintaining
and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet
standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and
related technology" and that the Trustees are not remunerated.
Regards
   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:10:40 -0700

Brian,

> related technology" and that the Trustees are not remunerated.

Good point. Thanks.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:17:21 -0700

Seun,

> Thanks for this update, the agreement categories does make sense.

Thanks.

> That said,  I think item 2 and 3 are somewhat interrelated and can be achieved with a single one

This might be possible in the case where the operator and
community are the same entity, but in the general case the
three agreements would have different parties:

1. ICANN - Trust
2. Trust - an operational community
3. IANA functions operator - Trust

Jari

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 07:59:34 +0100

Thanks for the clarification Jari, it's very much understood now. Just a
minor clarification, I assume the IFO in agreement 3 would be specified by
the respective OCs in agreement 2 and any subsequent review of 3 will have
dependency on 2. Is that correct?

Cheers!

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 06:48:57 -0700

Seun,

> I assume the IFO in agreement 3 would be specified by the respective OCs in agreement 2 and any subsequent review of 3 will have dependency on 2. Is that correct?

I think so.

Jari