[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Lise Fuhr]

Dear All,

 

Thank you for your comments on list to the draft of CWG position on IANA
IPR. Jonathan and I have carefully reviewed the comments, and revised the
text accordingly. Today we have sent the correspondence below to the ICG on
the subject of the IANA IPR.

 

Best regards,

Lise

Fra: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16
Til: alissa at cooperw.in
Cc: Patrik Fältström (paf at netnod.se); Mohamed El Bashir (mbashir at mbash.net)
Emne: CWG Position on IANA IPR

 

Dear Alissa and ICG Colleagues,

 

As you know, the final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response
to your ICG RFP, 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 CWG 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 a
subsequent associated contract.

 

Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG
proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, 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 the
three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. 

 

Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is
consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it
has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org,
.com and .net) 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 the detailed requirements
and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated
timelines.

 

Thank-you for your attention to this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson

IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs

For and on behalf of the CWG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150901/d48f40cf/attachment-0001.html>