[CWG-Stewardship] Further update on the IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150819/c7cc642e/attachment.html>