<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Jefsey <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
At 17:09 16/03/2014, John Curran wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:37 AM,
Jefsey <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Copyright-FAQ.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Copyright-FAQ.pdf</a><br>
These issues are probably to be better studied when refering to the IANA
issue. The USG cannot delegate what is owned by ISOC.</blockquote>
Could you be a little clearer? </blockquote><br>
These FAQ are an easy reminder of the legal issues concerning the
ownership of the Internet technology. <br></div></blockquote><br><div>Yes, a wonderful reminder... irrelevant from what I can tell, but a wonderful reminder.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Do you believe that the NTIA
must maintain its present IANA functions contract as a result
of the above reference? </blockquote><br>
IANA is an ICANN trade mark
(<a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:e1703w.2.6" eudora="autourl">
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:e1703w.2.6</a>
).</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I am aware of such, but you did not answer the question "Do you believe that the NTIA </div><div>must maintain its present IANA functions contract as a result of the above reference?"</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> NTIA relinquishes something it does not own and will continue to
control. What about Verisign.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>NTIA has been using the term "IANA" for many years, and it's solicitation and acceptance</div><div>of a plan to transition its administrative oversight role doesn't imply anything about control;</div><div>in fact, most would argue it would represent a form of relinquishing of control.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">To the extent that ISOC and the
IETF are "global customers and partners of the IANA services",
and any transition plan proposed meets their needs and expectations (a
requirement stated by NTIA), why would the above reference document pose
any issue?</blockquote><br>
Rights on the Internet are owned by the IETF Trust (nothing to do with
IANA, ICANN or the NTIA). This Trust can be modified and have successors.
It only grants right to modify or make derivative work outside of the
IETF on a case per case basis.</div></blockquote><br></div><div>So, you still have not expressed how your believe the IETF Copyright fact would interfere</div><div>with the NTIA's announced intention. The best I can discern is you are asserting an issue</div><div>based on a scenario where ISOC, IAB, and IESG all agree on a proposed transition is in</div><div>the IETF's interest but the IETF Trust would force the NTIA to instead continue the IANA</div><div>Function contract? Care to explain the actual concern that you foresee a little more clearly?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: My views alone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>