Sorry about the top post, but there's an important correction to be made here. _We_ do not own the IANA trademark. The IETF Trust does. Moreover, the Trust has certain agreements with other organizations and those constrain what the Trust may do. Finally, the Trust can't actually do exactly what it wants with the trademark, because there are rules about how trademarks must be handled in order to remain valid. The Trust agreed to take on the IANA ipr as part of the transition, as a service to the Internet operational communities affected. That doesn't mean we get just to do whatever we would like. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. > On Jan 10, 2017, at 20:37, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 11/01/2017 09:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:44:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout >>> the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong. >> >> Well, we need something other than "IANA", because the IETF is but one >> user of that mark, and the license that the IETF Trust gave to PTI >> does not permit them to refer to themselves as "IANA". > > I don't care what they call themselves. *WE* are writing this document, > we own the IANA trademark, and we can do exactly what we want with it. > >> Would "IANA Services Operator" do? > > It is clumsy and pointless, but at least it's grammatical. > >>> But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does. >> >> I think that's not quite correct. It's about what the IANA Services >> Operator for the protocol parameters registries (and other registries >> for which the IETF is policy authority) does. > > The distinction escapes me. Anyway, as Bob Hinden suggested, this can > all be taken care by a simple sentence at the beginning. > > Brian >