On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:57:51AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I thought a part of the reason
that we (IETF/IETF trust) took on the so-called "ipr" was because
we were best placed in terms of having the most healthily sceptical
attitude to the (lack of) value supposedly-inherent in that "ipr"?
There may be different reasons around the community why different
people thought it was ok for the Trust to end up holding this.
Perhaps a public mailing list is not the ideal place for me to vent^W
express my feelings about trademarks on "IANA" or related logos.
Nevertheless,
is that I don't care about the IETF trust issues and conclude that
reasonable grammar ought win in this case.
whether you care about IETF Trust issues makes no difference, because
the IETF Trustees, and only the IETF Trustees, are indivudually on the
hook for making sure their fiduciary duty with respect to the Trust
property is fulfilled. Therefore, I believe the Trust will insist
that the trademark on IANA be handled according to the agreements the
Trust has with various parties (including the IETF, note).
Full disclosure: until March or the IAB removes me (whichever comes
first), I'm IAB chair, which means I'm on the IAOC, which means I'm a
Trustee. I'm offering my personal opinion, but it is informed by what
I understood IETF Trust counsel advised. Because of a bad decision
when I was younger, I am not a lawyer, and this opinion is worth what
you paid for it :)
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com