[Internal-cg] Draft note to CWG regarding IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

[Alissa Cooper]

See below for discussion tomorrow.

---

Subject: Coordination regarding IANA trademarks and domain names
To: CWG
Cc: IANAPLAN, CRISP

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." [1] Our understanding is that this text is not something that the CWG has fully worked through and that the matter raised in the text has been expressly left to implementation. The text is indicated as being an initial draft subject to further negotiations.

During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing a potential incompatabilities between the three operational community proposals. First, both the IETF and RIR communities have been and and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3353 RFCs over several decades. An exclusive license is not compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. 

Second, the RIR community has specified expectations regarding the IANA trademark and domain name [2] -- namely, that the IANA trademark and domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made to be compatible in this regard. After a discussion in these communities, they 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. [3]

Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extent to the domain name as well.

The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. Given that the text in question from Annex S of the CWG proposal has not been thoroughly discussed in the CWG and is an initial draft, the ICG would like to request that the CWG 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. 

Thank you,
Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG

[1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132

[2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the 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 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 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."

[3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html

[4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html