[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

Wed Aug 26 17:24:10 UTC 2015

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 26 Aug 2015 17:18, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's
"non-objection" stance as well.
>
SO: Okay I agree, let's use the no-objection route especially as you think
there is/will be a lot to discuss on rationale. Hopefully we won't have to
engage legal on that 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.
>
SO: Well my point is that the rationale does not have to be that
complicated to agree on. Nevertheless, at the fear of prolonging this
unnecessarily, I agree we move on without rationale if others are fine with
it.

> 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.
>
SO: Perhaps that did not get across well, I was actually also saying either
freelancing or being specific to names (as it's the case with numbers) will
achieve same purpose. Practically speaking, the direct "contractual IFO"
for names would be PTI and the direct "contractual IFO" for numbers would
be ICANN.

Regards
> 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 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-Ekiti
>>> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>> alt email: 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/d9f4459f/attachment-0001.html>