News Review | ICANN63, Barcelona: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2018-10-28 with analysis and opinion: Features • 1) ICANN63, Barcelona: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, 2) Other ICANN News: a. GDPR & WHOIS, UAM ... d. EPDP Meetings Oct 30 & Nov 1 and more, 3) Names, Domains & Trademarks: Fair Use vs. EU Copyright Directive, 4) ICYMI: Getting the World Online, 5) Most Read.

1) ICANN63, Barcelona: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

THE GOOD, THE BAD

a. EPDP Working Group meetings at ICANN63 Highlights: 

at #ICANN63, we are debating what Whois data needs to be collected to establish the rights of a registrant in a domain name. The Policy chief of @GoDaddy says he doesn't believe registrants have any rights.

Who's your registrar?

— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) October 20, 2018

How ironic You did not write this alone, and you were responsible for replacing the word "rights" with "benefits" in the title (but not the rest of the document, probably an oversight)

— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) October 20, 2018

In fact, they use automated string searches that produce tons of false positives and spam registrars with requests for private data #Whois https://t.co/bv319tBTy6

— Milton Mueller (@miltonmueller) October 21, 2018

We emphasize the GAC consensus advice from ICANN62 that urged ICANN to take all steps necessary to ensure the development and implementation of a unified access model that addresses accreditation, authentication, access and accountability, and applies to all contracted parties. We welcome ICANN’s efforts to facilitate the necessary community discussion through the Unified Access Model papers and emphasize the need to drive these discussions towards concrete and timely results.--ICANN63 GAC Communique (pdf)

NCSG reps tell #ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee: Don't get your heart set on a Unified Access Model - it may not be compatible with #GDPR pic.twitter.com/RpliRMHKbF

— IGP Alert (@IGPAlert) October 21, 2018

For more on EPDP & GDPR at ICANN63 see last week's News Review: ICANN63 Meeting Oct 20-25, ICANN's Tipping Point?, but if you want ICANN's 'sanitized' version, here it is:

THE UGLY
b. ICANN Dysfunction

Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group a/k/a RPM-WG:

• Exhibit 1: 23 Oct 2018 email to RPM-WG Public Mail List from WG Co-Chair Phil Corwin (RySG - Verisign) "Note to Mr. Kirikos Regarding His Characterization of URS Sub-team Recommendations as 'Wishlists'";

• Exhibit 2: 23 Oct 2018 reply email from Mr. Kirikos;

• Exhibit 3: 21 Oct 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript (pdf) pp. 23-36;

• Exhibit 4: 23 Oct 2018 Letter from Kirikos's Attorney (pdf);

• Exhibit 5: 25 Oct 2018 RPM PDP Complaint referral.

c. Slides (pdf) from ICANN63 Session 24 Oct 2018: What Issues and Challenges are Registrants Having Managing Domain Names?

d. GAC Communique (pdf):

"The GAC is not in a position to approve or reject the [CCWG WS2 on ICANN Accountability] recommendations on jurisdiction. Some GAC members support the recommendations. Other GAC members consider that they fall short of the objectives envisaged for Work Stream 2 and only partly mitigate the risks associated with ICANN’s subjection to US jurisdiction. The reasons why these members object to approving the recommendations are documented in the dissenting statement [pdf] submitted to the CCWG by Brazil." (emphasis and links added)

The GAC will next meet at ICANN64, Kobe, Japan, 9-14 Mar 2019.

e. ICANN63 pre- and post-meeting reports | ICANN.org.

f.  That sad Public Forum 2 at ICANN63--note particularly Amadeu Abril I Abril and Marilyn Cade's comments about ICANN's 'revolving door' and public perceptions of an unethical ICANN and its leadership--transcript (pdf) pp. 20-22, 29-31, 47-49.

Editor's final ICANN63 note: kudos to 

• The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, Stephanie Perrin, Milton Mueller, and the entire NCSG's EPDP delegation, for standing up for registrants and registrants' rights;
• Paul Foody for exposing the dysfunctional and corrupt foundation of ICANN's new gTLDs program at ICANN63's Public Forum 1, see transcript (pdf), pp.50-54.

Lastly, holding ICANN accountable: my comment (pdf) embed below, submitted Oct 21, 2018 (during ICANN63) re: Draft Final Report of The Second Security and Stability Advisory Committee Review (SSAC2). The public comment period closes 3 Dec 2018 23:59 UTC (subject to change by ICANN org).

2) Other ICANN News

a. ICANN Board of Directors Report (pdf):

ICANN CEO Goran Marby: "... We continue to make significant progress in identifying a permanent solution for bringing ICANN and its contracted parties into compliance with the GDPR. With the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data now in full effect, the org has shifted its focus towards developing a proposed unified access model. Please follow updates [here] ...." [p.3 of 87](emphasis added)
....
"DNS Engineering: As a security measure to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown vulnerabilities, all IMRS (ICANN Managed Root Servers) have a newly patched kernel and have been rebooted. Several new IMRS hosts were brought online. We completed testing of IANA domain moves from GoDaddy to CSC (IETF Trust). We implemented templates for better management of ICANN domains with ICANN domain registrars."[p.29 of 87](emphasis added).

b. FY18 Annual Report (pdf) of Expense Reimbursement and Other Payments to ICANN Directors for the Period 1 July 2017 Through 30 June 2018.

c. Summary of RDS PDP Organizational Lessons Learned  (pdf). Editor's Note: Another Story of ICANN Dysfunction--the RDS PDP. Stephanie Perrin's recent (Oct 22, 2018 pdf) take at ICANN63:

d. EPDP Meetings this coming week:

EPDP Meetings' start time this week: 13:00 UTC (9am EDT). Observers: Adobe Connect, or audio cast (browser or app). See also  GNSO Council EPDP page and updates. Links to all EPDP meetings' transcripts and recordings are on the GNSO calendar. Other EPDP links: wiki, mail list, action items, Temp Spec, EPDP Charter (pdf), Data Elements Workbooks (pdf).

Thursday Nov 1 (wiki page, documents) agenda, meeting transcript (pdf), Adobe recording, MP3, Nov 1, 2018, EPDP draft Initial Report (pdf) prepared by ICANN staff. Notes and action items are here,  chat transcript (pdf) embed below: 

Tuesday Oct 30 (agenda, documents, recordings); Editor's note: see this, this, this, and this on the mail list. High-level Notes/Actions here. Meeting transcript (pdf)l chat transcript (pdf) embed below:

e. More ICANN Dysfunction: Interim Supplementary Rules for the Independent Review Process (IRP):

• 23 October 2018 Letter from Chairs of Non-Contracted Parties to ICANN Board;

• Letter from McAuley to Chalaby and Letter from Chalaby to McAuley. 

f. is for FAILING new gTLDs: Minutes of ICANN Board Finance Committee (BFC) Meeting 3 Oct 2018: "The BFC further noted that the operations funding for FY18 was US$600,000 lower than the FY17 actuals and US$8.8 million lower than the FY18 adopted budget. During the course of FY18, there was a significant drop in the funding forecast against the adopted budget mainly due to the slower-than-anticipated growth of new gTLD registrations.

g. ICANN Board of Directors: Approved Board Resolutions 25 Oct 2018 | Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board: no major organizaitonal changes. ICANN Annual Report for period July 1, 2017 - June 30 2018 (pdf). The ICANN Board adopted the Independent Review Process Interim Supplementary Procedures and other Board Resolutions at a Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 25 Oct 2018, including Deferral of Transition to Thick WHOIS Consensus Policy Implementation for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS, and Replenishment of the Reserve Fund:

Resolved (2018.10.25.22), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all actions necessary to increase the Reserve Fund through annual excesses from the operating fund of ICANN organization by a total amount of US$32 million over a period of seven to eight years, starting with FY19.

Resolved (2018.10.25.23), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to take all actions necessary to allocate US$36 million of [new gTLD] auction proceeds to the Reserve Fund, as soon as technically feasible.

h. ICANN Public Comment Periods closing in November here.

i. GNSO Council Leadership: Keith Drazek (RySG - Verisign), Pam Little (RrSG - Alibaba Group), Rafik Dammak (NCSG - NTT Communications):

Editor's note: Pam Little is "first class" and a great choice! Someone at Alibaba Group also made a brilliant move in hiring her!

3) Names, Domains & Trademarks

a. Fair Use vs. EU Copyright Directive: 

“This [EU] Legislation Poses A Threat To Both Your Livelihood And Your Ability To Share Your Voice With The World.”

YouTube CEO says EU regulation will be bad for creators--‘Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs’--theverge.com. Editor's note: many "creators" are domain name registrants.

b. ICYMI: Verisign $VRSN Q3 2018 Earnings, LIVE Webcast Oct 25: Verisign has "entered into an agreement with NeuStar, Inc. (“Neustar”) to sell the rights, economic benefits, and obligations, in all customer contracts related to its Security Services business."  Verisign's Chairman, President & CEO James Bidzos also said:

"To update you on our discussion about the Cooperative Agreement, we are mindful of the upcoming expiration and are progressing with the NTIA to amend the Cooperative Agreement by mutual agreement. When we are able to provide more information, we will do so. I will tell you that we are confident that an amended agreement can be executed before the expiration of the current term which is the end of November. However, until that process is complete, there is nothing more that we can disclose at this time."--transcript via SeekingAlpha.com (emphasis added).

4) ICYMI Internet Domain News 

Almost 50% of the world is online, but getting the rest of the world online will be far more difficult--theguardian.com.

source: statista.com

Growth in global internet access dropped from 19% in 2007 to less than 6% last year--new data suggests the digital revolution will remain out of reach for billions--theweek.co.uk.

EU, US, China: There May Soon Be Three Internets. America’s Won’t Necessarily Be the Best. A breakup of the web grants privacy, security and freedom to some, and not so much to others.--Editorial, NYTimes.com.

5) Most Read Posts this past week on DomainMondo.com: 

1. News Review: ICANN63 Meeting Oct 20-25, ICANN's Tipping Point?

2. 2018 Q3 Replay $AMZN $GOOGL $VRSN $TWTR $TSLA

3. Tech Review | Future Finance: Smart Contracts on the Blockchain (video)

-- John Poole, Editor • Domain Mondo 

feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
Follow @DomainMondo

DISCLAIMER

How ICANN Lost Its IANA Trademarks and IANA dot ORG Domain Name

UPDATE: 22 Jan 2016: IANA CWG Meeting #75 (21 January @ 16:00 UTC) - CWG on Stewardship Transition: "3. IANA IPR [intellectual property -- IANA trademarks, IANA.org domains] "Discussed in December as well as previous meeting. Functional neutrality (owner must operate in such a way that control is not steered by one of the operational communities over the exclusion of others) deemed acceptable based on those discussions, not necessary to create a whole new entity, logical option is to use the IETF Trust provided no substantial issues emerge in the future. Confirm that there are no objections to this approach. No objections received so the CWG-Stewardship will proceed on this basis. Discuss how the different operational communities can collaborate on the implementation of this solution. Utilize the group that has been operating to co-ordinate on this topic consisting of representatives of the different operational communities, plus Greg [Shatan] and Chairs of CWG-Stewardship. Objective is to flesh out the principle and example terms under which the different communities would have their relationships with the IETF Trust in relation to IANA IPR. Group has agreed to make all of its future email conversations public. Notes of previous meetings have been circulated. Target is to reach agreement on high level principles in advance of submission of the ICG proposal to the NTIA." (emphasis added) 

Questions: Will IETF or IETF Trust, or subsidiary, eventually run IANA, and assess each TLD an annual fee plus transactional fee per change to the Root Zone file? If yes, then ccTLDs do not need ICANN, and if all gTLDs are required to become ccTLDs, ICANN could be abolished. Global TLD issues could then be dealt with by treaty as provided in "Article 18.28: Domain Names" in the TPP drafted by the US government + 11 other nations. Isn't that what China also wants? See this and this.

--[end of 22 Jan 2016 update]-- 

"From an ICG perspective, the “requirement” that the numbers community set out (see para 2083 of the transition proposal) is that the IANA IPR be held by an entity that is not the IANA numbering services operator. The designation of exactly who that entity will be is not a requirement and is not currently specified in the proposal. The proposal does note that the numbers community suggested the IETF Trust and in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection to the IETF Trust serving as the repository for the trademarks and domain name associated with the provision of the IANA services (see para 34-35)." - ICG Co-Chair Alissa Cooper

"It is consistent with our proposal if the criteria is described so that an entity holding the IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain is not the IANA Function Operator for the IANA Numbering Services. It is not a requirement to specify a particular entity holding the IANA trademark and iana.org domain. The IETF Trust is identified as an acceptable option and we note that the IETF Trust has expressed that it is possible for them to be its holder if so desired." - CRISP (Numbers) 20 Aug 2015

UPDATE August 20, 2015: After receiving clarifications from the ICG and CRISP (see above), CWG-Stewardship (Names) at its meeting today noted:
· ICANN Board issued a statement on Saturday 15 August (see August 15th UPDATE below).
· ICG Chairs and CRISP Chairs have responded positively on the mailing list and clarified questions/issues where needed.
· Agreement on a neutral/independent trust and the communities can focus on requirements for this trust during implementation.
· Olivier Crepin Leblond clarified that the At-Large Working Group on IANA Transition is in agreement with the concept of the independent trust (although they would have preferred that ICANN continue to hold these marks).
· Greg Shatan (IPC President) agrees with proposed position
· Next step: communicate this position to the ICG through the Public Comment and to the other communities involved.
· Martin Boyle noted that the IFO will need to have operational control of the IANA.ORG and associated domain names. This is a requirement that needs to be clarified in the agreement.
Action: CWG-Stewardship Chairs to draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities.

UPDATE: As announced by ICANN on August 15, 2015:

ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): "ICANN supports the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) proposal and the underlying proposals from the Community Working Group (CWG), the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team and the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) working group.

The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) component of the proposal. The Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANA Functions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG domain.

During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANN will maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANAFunctions Operator.

If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities.

We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing from anyone in the community." (emphasis added)

Above is a Domain Mondo graphic showing how the ICG IANA Transition Plan moves the IANA trademarks and domain name (IPR) to the IETF Trust whiich would grant licenses for use by ICANN, PTI, IETF, RIRs et al.

For domain name registrants and trademark owners who have been subjected to ICANN's unfair, unpredictable UDRP processes, this may come as a bit of "poetic justice"--ICANN will lose ownership of its intellectual property (IPR) in the form of the IANA trademarks and domain name (iana.org), under the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan (pdf) published by the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group) and now open for comment.

As shown in the Domain Mondo produced graphic above, pursuant to the ICG PLAN, ICANN will continue to be the IFO (IANA functions operator) for the Numbers (NRO, RIRs) and Protocols (IETF) communities. The Names (ccTLDs and gTLDs) community's IFO will be an ICANN affiliate (a new California non-profit corporation) called PTI, or Post-Transition IANA, which will perform the Names-related IANA functions. Under the Numbers proposal, subsequently incorporated into the final integrated plan published by the ICG, the IETF Trust will become the repository of the IANA trademarks and domain name:

Above: Excerpt from page 15 of the IANA Transition Plan published by the ICG, July, 2015

Some members of the dysfunctional CWG-Stewardship (Names) would have preferred a different result than above, but as explained by Domain Mondo in a June 20th post, the CWG-Stewardship and/or its Co-Chairs, apparently chose not to consider an alternative disposition of the IANA marks and domain name other than remaining "silent" as noted by the ICG in the IANA Transition Plan (excerpt above): "In effect, the names proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and is completely silent as regards the domain name)." (emphasis added)

This was also reiterated by Alan Greenberg, ALAC Chair, and a member of the CWG-Stewardship, in a posting on the CWG's public mail list on August 10, 2015 (emphasis added):

"I have a strong preference that the TM [trademarks] and domain name remain with ICANN. The CWG chose not to delve further in this matter prior to issuing its final proposal. Regardless of why that happened, that is a fact. When the report was issued and the issue was raised as to the meaning of the "placeholder" words in Annex S, the reply included the words "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." (Message from Jonathan Robinson, 02 July 2015). That, I presume, was the basis for the ICG issuing its consolidated proposal. I do not recall what was reported out of that meeting, if indeed it happened. Based on all of that, I still PREFER an option where ICANN holds the assets. However, I can live with them being transferred to the IETF Trust with appropriate contractual language to give the names community security that the assets will be available for them regardless of the paths taken to provide IANA service for the Numbers and Protocol communities. Establishing an understanding with the IETF Trust so that the details can be completed as part of the implementation schedule is, in my mind, the number one priority." Alan [Greenberg]

As has been noted on the CWG public mail list by Greg Shatan, trademark attorney, IPC President, and member of the CWG-Stewardship, the IETF Trust will, as licensor, have a duty to exercise "quality control" over use of the IANA trademarks by licensees (ICANN et al):

"..."Trademark Usage" refers to the display of the trademark itself (size,colors, placement, accurate reproduction, etc.) "Quality Control" refers to the quality of the goods and services themselves. Control of Trademark Usage is typically achieved by establishing "Trademark Usage Guidelines" which are distributed to licensees and may be periodically updated. Licensees are typically contractually obligated to follow such Guidelines and to seek prior approval for any substantial deviations from those Guidelines. Some licensors may obligate licensees to seek approvals for all new uses of the trademarks, to confirm that the usage meets the guidelines, but this is not legally required. Quality Control of the licensee's goods and services is far more important. Quality Control is typically achieved by setting out written standards that the goods and services must meet (which may vary from fairly high-level statements to very detailed quality control levels, specifying the way in which the licensee must provide the service and benchmarks that need to be met by licensee), coupled with some sort of active quality control exercised by the licensor on a regular basis (e.g., prior approvals by licensor of any new goods/services proposed to be offered by licensee, inspections of samples, factory/site visits). Active and ongoing quality control is critical; merely setting up quality control standards is insufficient. A licensor's failure to exercise adequate quality control can result in a finding of abandonment of the mark and loss of trademark rights ..." source: Greg Shatan, 6 Aug 2015 (emphasis added)

Which leads to Domain Mondo's Questions:

1. What Quality Control "standards" and "benchmarks" will the IETF Trust require ICANN, and its affiliate PTI, to meet and maintain, on an "ongoing basis," in order to continue using the IANA trademarks as licensees?

2. If ICANN, or its affiliate, PTI, fails to meet and maintain, on an "ongoing basis," those Quality Control "standards" and "benchmarks" established by the IETF Trust, will that "failure" trigger termination of ICANN as IFO for Numbers and Protocols, and as Steward of the IANA for Names, and in the case of PTI, trigger its termination as IFO for Names, OR (perhaps more likely) just terminate ICANN/PTI's rights to use the IANA trademarks and domain name? If it is the latter, what effect, if any, will that have on ICANN and PTI--do either ICANN or PTI even need rights to use the IANA trademarks and domain name?

Previous Domain Mondo posts on this issue:

• IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts (June 19, 2015)
• IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust? (June 20, 2015)
• ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name (July 3, 2015)

For background on the history of the IANA trademarks and domain name read this posting to the CWG-Stewardship public mail list by John Poole, Editor of Domain Mondo, which details how the IANA marks and domain name were transferred from the original owner/registrant, the University of Southern California (where Jon Postel worked until his death in 1998), to ICANN (effective February 9, 2000).

Under current ICANN management and leadership, the IANA department has been somewhat neglected--e.g., see the most current ICANN organizational chart (pdf)--the IANA (Elise Gerich) does not report directly to the ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade (p.2), but instead, is buried within or under the Global Domains Division (Akram Atallah) (p. 5). As noted above, and in the IANA Transition Plan, this will change after the Transition is completed.


Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust?

ICANN video above: Alissa Cooper (IETF) - published on Jul 25, 2014 - Alissa Cooper discusses her representation of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) during the group’s first meeting in London, 17-18 July 2014.

Note: this is a continuation of yesterday's post: IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts.

[Disclosure: this background information and analysis has been provided by the Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole (hereinafter "John"), who was also an observer of the CWG-Stewardship (observers are called "participants" in the CWG-Stewardship, as they are allowed to have a "voice" in the proceedings, but no "vote" in the consensus decision-making).]

As noted yesterday, Alissa Cooper (hereinafter "Alissa"), ICG co-chair, sent an email to CWG-Stewardship Friday, in which the "ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC." This issue being the transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name to the IETF Trust as proposed by the Numbers community (RIRs/CRISP). The IETF Trust, is not affiliated with ICANN, and according to its website, its sole beneficiary is the IETF, also known as the "the Protocols community," represented by Alissa (see video above). The IETF has agreed to have the IETF Trust be the transferee of the IANA trademarks and domain name (iana.org) which are owned/registered in the name of ICANN. The two other key players in this whole saga are Greg Shatan (hereinafter "Greg"), IP attorney and IPC President, and Professor Milton Mueller (hereinafter "Milton"), who is a member of the ICG but also participates or contributes to the Names, Numbers, Protocols, and CCWG-Accountability mail lists, and has been active in ICANN since the late 1990s.

Here are the most relevant links (dates are all calendar year 2015):

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Design Team: IANA IPR, including IANA Trademark and Domain Name - Greg flagged the Numbers proposal to transfer the IANA trademarks as an issue to be addressed by the CWG-Stewardship on February 23, 2015, by way of his proposed Design Team G.

February 23: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG: via Alissa, Numbers community rationale for transferring the trademarks and domain name from ICANN to the IETF Trust.

March 1-2: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list: Greg responded to John's objection to Design Team G, after which, John concurred with Greg's statement: "To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models."  John: "... I will defer to your and Jonathan's and Lise's [CWG-Stewardship co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr] wise judgment on how to best proceed on this--perhaps even the formality of a design team can be dispensed with--it sounds like you need to move quickly "to slow the train down." If so, do whatever is necessary..." [note: soon thereafter John withdrew from any active participation in the CWG-Stewardship].

So what happened to Greg's Design Team G? Nothing it appears--the CWG-Stewardship Wiki page indicates:

June 10: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Bill Manning and Milton catch the "draft language" that Greg inserted into the CWG-Stewardship proposal, which is the same language referred to by Alissa in her email of June 19, 2015.

June 10-11:  [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5: Milton and Greg each express their respective positions which led to even more discussion by many people on the CWG-Stewardship mail list, including even John, who after reading the exchanges, contributed the historical context--[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5--to which Greg replied with "thanks," and Milton responded that the historical trademark/domain name record was "not relevant" to which John responded (also explaining the importance of this issue for domain name registrants, trademark holders, and the global multistakeholder community). Thereafter Greg responded to Milton which left the CWG-stewardship proposal with the draft language to which the ICG responded Friday through Alissa.

postscript: Jonathan Robinson's (co-chair of the CWG-Stewardship) posting on June 11, 2015, is interesting:

Bill [Manning],
Two key points from my perspective:
1. There is urgency to send the proposal out to the chartering organisations but that does not in any way imply a lack of recognition to deal with this trademarks issue.
2. Lise and I have previously had meetings with the CRISP chairs. We have also had meetings with the ICG chairs group. The purpose of the meetings was primarily to ensure continuous updates on progress and current issues. We touched on the trademarks issue in a meeting with the ICG chairs yesterday. Clearly, there is now some more work to be done.

Jonathan

Yes, there is clearly "some more work to be done"--that may be the understatement of the year!

Domain Mondo doesn't know how the SO/ACs are supposed to approve a CWG-Stewardship proposal that isn't yet finished. Welcome to the Land of ICANN!

Domain Mondo UPDATE: ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name


Follow @DomainMondo

IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts

"What's in a name? 

That which we call a rose

By any other name 

would smell as sweet."

-- Juliet in Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

by William Shakespeare

 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) meeting agenda, Friday, June 19, 2015, Buenos Aires

The IANA Stewardship Transition process, convened by ICANN pursuant to the NTIA's March, 2014, announcement, has involved three ICANN "communities"--Names (CWG-Stewardship), Numbers (RIRs a/k/a CRISP), and Protocols (IETF a/k/a IANAPLAN)-- each coming up with their own IANA Transition proposal and submitting it to the  IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) which will "deliver a proposal to the NTIA recommending a transition plan of NTIA’s stewardship of IANA functions to the Internet community, consistent with the key principles outlined in the NTIA March 14 announcement" according to the ICG website.

Pursuant to the ICG meeting June 18-19, 2015, in Buenos Aires (Friday agenda above), ICG co-chair Alissa Cooper, who is also a member of the IETF (Protocols) community, sent the following email to the CWG-Stewardship (emphasis added):

Alissa Cooper to cwg-stewardship:

Dear CWG,
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 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 [2] 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. [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 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.
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

Initial analysis and  background note:

[Disclosure: information and analysis provided by the Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole, who was also an observer of the CWG-Stewardship (observers are called "participants" in the CWG-Stewardship, as they are allowed to have a "voice" in the proceedings, but no "vote" in the consensus decision-making).]

Interestingly, the members of the ICG, and specifically, Co-Chair Cooper, who also attended CWG-Stewardship meetings and received all emails posted on the CWG-Stewardship mail list, failed to note that the RIR community's IANA trademark and domain name proposal to transfer the IANA trademarks and domain name to the IETF Trust, was first flagged as a problem by CWG-Stewardship member Greg Shatan, intellectual property attorney, and President of the ICANN IPC (Intellectual Property Constituency), on February 23, 2015. Domain Mondo's next post will provide further background information and analysis of this issue, why its resolution is important, not only for ICANN and its "communities," but also for domain name registrants, trademark holders, and the global multistakeholder community, also known as the global Internet community.

Domain Mondo UPDATE: ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name


Follow @DomainMondo