> On Mar 28, 2016, at 9:11 AM 3/28/16, Alain Durand <alain.dur...@icann.org> > wrote: > > On 3/26/16, 11:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" > <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > >> I guess my point was merely that your examples seemed only to be >> arguing from this or that trade or service mark to some conclusion >> that the IETF had an obvious problem to contemplate. But the >> registrations in 6761 are, not going to be part of such disputes; or, >> if they are, it is a problem the IETF will have confronted in its >> evaluation. Waving around possible trademark cases as things one >> ought to worry about seems to me not to help the discussion. > > > Andrew, > > This is the crux of the issue. I have a hard time to believe the statement > you are making above > that future RFC6761 registrations will not be the object of trademark & co > disputes.
I understand Andrew's point to be that the decision process regarding trademark, etc., disputes will take place as part of the review process inherent in meeting the requirements for publishing 'an IETF "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification', which is required in RFC 6761 for adding a name to the registry. > ICANN history has shown us that anything that has a name attached to it is > a potentially candidate for such a dispute. > It may or may not have been the case for Onion or Local, but we have no > guarantees it will not > be the case for the following ones. > > Now, your second statement that the IETF will confront such potential > claims during evaluation > is where I personally express serious reservations. As I mentioned in a > previous email, > I do not believe the IETF is well equipped to deal with that. Wishing > those issues away > is, IMHO, the very thing that is not helping in this discussion. I trust > this community > to make good technical decisions, but I¹m not ready to sign a blank check > on its ability > to make good decisions in the trademark/name policy arena. First, I'll emphasize that the process of designating a name as "special use" is separate from the mechanical process of actually adding a new name to the Special-Use Names registry. RFC 6761 explicitly defines the latter process, and implicitly requires open IETF review for the former process. In my opinion, we can focus on the former process, of deciding whether a name should be designated as having a special use. This process may have, as you point out, issues regarding trademarks, association of names with organizations, and many others. I'm not trying to wish those issues away, and I don't think Andrew is either. Rather, speaking only for myself, I believe that our open process of community review and consensus is an appropriate starting point for discussion. - Ralph > > > Alain, speaking for myself. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
