[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

Chuck,

 

Thank-you. That's a good point. It's not something Lise & I have explicitly
discussed.

 

I suppose that, from a CWG perspective, we could start work on at any time
but my sense was that we would pick this up after the ICG completed its
work.

I am not certain we need to specifically spell it out here. Do you (or
others) have a view on this?

 

More generally, the CWG's role in implementation (of our proposal) is
something we could also usefully discuss at some point.

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 26 August 2015 12:30
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

 

Jonathan & Lise,

 

This looks good to me but I wonder whether we should say something about
timing targets in the last paragraph.

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:25 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

 

All,

 

You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG,  the following
action arose:

 

Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant
communities. 

 

Please see below for such a draft. 

 

Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no
later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August.

 

Thank-you,

 

Jonathan & Lise

 

--

 

Dear ICG,

 

The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the
IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given
that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in
square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal
was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final
Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA
IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful.
Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA
IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an
entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to
ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the
benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements.

 

Thank-you for your attention to this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Jonathan & Lise

For and on behalf of the CWG

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150826/d5d77309/attachment.html>