[CWG-Stewardship] Further update on the IANA IPR

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Jonathan,

I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.

My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, 
but that ship has apparently sailed.

Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only 
one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken 
over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a 
specially designed trust in support of all three communities.

 From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives 
(including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied 
that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am 
happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I 
think that we need to get beyond that.

I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be 
accepted by the ALAC.

Alan





At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

>All,
>
>The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA 
>IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) 
>and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting 
>tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
>
>Essentially:
>
>1.     The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well 
>received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting 
>to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally 
>confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the 
>CRISP proposal.
>2.      There was a little concern expressed over the apparent 
>distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN 
>statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker.
>3.      As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put 
>forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the 
>IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
>
>Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG 
>is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal 
>i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those 
>of the other responding communities?
>In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing 
>specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part 
>of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
>
> From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination 
> discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the 
> CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is 
> consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the 
> transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA 
> numbering services operator.
>
>Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of 
>the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the 
>implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or 
>requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming 
>the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent 
>discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in 
>current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the 
>same purpose.
>
>We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful 
>in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we 
>can complete on our Thursday call?
>
>Thank-you,
>
>
>Jonathan & Lise
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship