[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

Wed Aug 26 16:18:19 UTC 2015

We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale.  To the extent we
discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns,
i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the
trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational
communities chose a different IANA operator.  We spent little if any time
on the stated rationale.  As such, it is inappropriate for this group to
adopt this rationale.

It's also important to note that we are expressing non-objection with the
requirement.  We do not need to express agreement with all or any part of
the Numbering community's rationale, nor have we come to consensus to do so.

This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection"
stance as well.

If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other
rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my
opinions known.  But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the
ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary.

As for "freelancing" -- that is hardly my suggestion.  Perhaps you don't
recognize it, but that is a pejorative characterization.  I was agreeing
with you, so I am baffled by now being accused of "freelancing."  I can
only assume it was unintentional.

Greg

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Overall, the statement looks good, with a few minor changes.
>>
>> I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision;
>> it's sufficient to say that we do not object.  Therefore, I would delete
>> the phrase "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a
>> non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."
>>
>
> I think that rationale is important, i don't see why you think it should
> be removed. Saying we do not object simply implies agreeing with the
> rationale as well. So i prefer we write is out as it currently is.
>
>
>> If we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we
>> discussed this particular rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our
>> discussions to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we
>> don't need to take and don't really have.
>>
>
> Again this should be straight forward, do you (we) think there are other
> rationales other than what is written above? is the goal not to allow
> access to the resource in the manner stated in the text above.
>
>
>> I agree with Chuck that some mention of timing would be a good idea, but
>> I think it can be very general -- just that we expect this can be done
>> within the currently contemplated timelines.
>>
>> With regards to Seun's comment, I'm sure you wrote what you meant to
>> write, based on the way that the "requirement" is expressed in the ICG
>> proposal (which only makes reference to an entity independent of the IANA
>> Numbering Systems Operator, and does not refer to the IANA Functions
>> Operator).
>>
>
> I have explained in my previous mail why i think the numbering community
> wrote their text that way and its to refer to numbers community.
>
>
>>   However, I think it makes sense from a CWG perspective to make the
>> reference broader, since those who have not studied these proposals closely
>> will not know why we have limited our independence criteria.
>>
>
> Freelancing it is fine though it really may not add anything more so long
> as the "numbering" part of the text is changed to names
>
>>
>> Also, the statement refers to the "IANA IPR" but the subject is really
>> the trademarks and domain names.  The IPR actually referred to in the
>> proposal also include public and confidential databases (which we have not
>> discussed at all), so we may want to be more specific.  The reference to
>> the "IANA trademark" is also inaccurate, since there are 3 trademarks (the
>> full name, the acronym and the logo); there are also IANA 3 domain names
>> owned by ICANN. We should be accurate.
>>
>> With these comments in mind, I would revise the statement as follows:
>>
>
> Except for the rationale that has been removed, I don't see any issues
> with the revised version either way is fine by me. Nevertheless, if there
> is consensus to remove the rationale, i will have no problem with it.
>
> Cheers!
>
>>
>> Dear ICG,
>>
>>
>>
>> The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to
>> the IANA trademarks, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S.
>> However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the
>> trademark language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified
>> with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA trademarks
>> and domain names. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the
>> CWG’s intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA trademarks and
>> domain names, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt
>> with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal,
>> including the full preparation of a term sheet and the associated contract.
>>
>>
>>
>> Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG
>> proposal, as well as some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG
>> and a statement by the ICANN board, it has become apparent that further
>> clarification on the CWG position on the IANA trademarks and domain names
>> will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its
>> position on the IANA trademarks and domain names, including referring to
>> the ICG proposal and all three responses to the ICG RFP which form the
>> foundation of that proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> The CWG is able to formally confirm that its position is consistent with
>> that of the other ICG RFP respondents in that the CWG has no objection to
>> the IANA trademarks and the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain name (and
>> iana.com and iana.net domain names) being transferred to an entity
>> independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we
>> view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of
>> 15 August 2015 on the same subject.
>>
>>
>> With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that,
>> in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed
>> requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified
>> and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or
>> selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet these detailed
>> requirements within the currently contemplated timelines.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan & Lise
>>
>> For and on behalf of the CWG
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Mueller, Milton L <
>> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Seun is right – the statement needs to be more general, not about
>>> numbering only.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > The CWG is able to formally confirm that its position is consistent
>>> with that of the other ICG RFP respondents in that the CWG has no objection
>>> to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to
>>> an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator,
>>> >
>>>
>>> SO:
>>> I presume you meant to write independent of "IANA functions operator"
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150826/f5216d64/attachment.html>