Thank you Aziz,
I know this statement was released a while ago, and we should have weighed in on it on time. I am guilty as charged.
From the draft, I can see we have weighed in more on the transparency and accountability track, and the naming function of the IANA transition. We need to be balanced and "wholesome" in our statement. It would have been good if the community can also comment on the transition of the other two operational communities proposals, the IETF and the Numbering community. We all agree these are part of the "Internet unique Identifiers".
I will draft a paragraph or two on the numbering functions. Perhaps, we can have somebody else do the same for the IETF proposal?
However, I disagree with this statement on IANA trademarks:
"We observe that the CWG proposes to transfer IANA assests (sic) including the IANA trademarks; we are in disagreement with this as we will prefer that the trademarks remain with the contractor post-transition (which is ICANN)"
My observation would be to allow more dialogue between the three operational communities (names, numbers, protocol parameters) that utilize the IPR (
iana.org and IANA trademarks), and ensure there is consensus on what to do with them. You will realize the numbering community had proposed the IPRs remain in the public domain by being transferred to a neutral entity which would then license the IPRs to the IFO to serve the operational communities in perpetuity for free. The idea was, in the unlikely event in future one community decides to transfer the IANA functions related to them, then they should still be able to access the IPR unrestricted.
So the statement should have read something like "More dialogue is needed between the three operational communities (names, numbers, and protocol parameters) on transfer of IANA assets including the IANA trademark and
iana.org domain. The community should ensure there is consensus in the final outcome."
Sincerely,
NB: Sent in my personal capacity.