[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Avri Doria]

good point.

avri


On 26-Aug-15 19:51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I don’t have strong feelings on this Jonathan.  I just know that
> everyone is concerned about timing so I thought it might be good to
> state that we plan to do whatever is necessary to avoid delays.
>
>  
>
> Chuck
>
>  
>
> *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:01 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
>
>  
>
> 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 <mailto:jrobinson at afilias.info>;
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 20^th 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
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus