[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

Milton / Seun,

 

That’s a fair point. In preparing the statement, we used the exact wording from the CRISP proposal in order to be 100% clear that the two were consistent but I can see your concern.

 

I think it would remain as consistent with the modified wording suggested by Seun unless others have concerns?

 

Jonathan

 

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] 
Sent: 26 August 2015 14:19
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

 

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 <http://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"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150826/6f36a22a/attachment-0001.html>