Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] update on trademarks and domains & IETF trust

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:58:47 +0100

At 19:18 17/02/2016, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>We've also started work on a document of principles.  The draft is not
>complete yet, and there are still some issues to work out, but I at
>least would be extremely happy to hear remarks about what you see
>there, if you have time to read and comment.  You can see the document
>at
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i4ad4/edit?usp=sharing.
>Unfortunately, it seems that in Google docs when you have read-only
>access you can't see the comments either.

Looks like TAFTA negociations !
Welcome to djtnet ...

>There are a couple issues that I think are quite important still to
>sort out.
>
>First, there's a set of things about the registration of iana.org.

what about "iana.arpa"?
and iana.iana or "iana.icann"?

...

>Third, and perhaps most important, is the discussion in 3.g.  There's
>a tricky problem here.  The Trust will own the trademarks.  Under
>trademark law, this means that the Trust will have a duty and a right
>to enforce uses of the trademark.  So, if the Trust thinks that
>there's a problem and it's gone unresolved, the Trust needs to be able
>(in its sole discretion) to cancel the trademakk license to an IANA
>operator.  At the same time, we want the individual operational
>communities to have the power to select their operators.  The key
>thing here in 3.g. is to see whether the balance is right given what
>we want and the constraints of trademark law.

So, this seems to support those who claim that trade maks owns the 
internet, the same as RFC 6852 when it makes markets decide about 
technology. Seems to confirm RFC 3869 : " The principal thesis of 
this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of 
funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet 
infrastructure could be in trouble." IAB was right.

jfc