FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right
Dear Councilors– Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call. Thanks— J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
Dear Council Colleagues – As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements. If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed. Thank you, J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councilors– Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call. Thanks— J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
No objection from the RySG. Full support. Keith On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:12 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues – As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements. If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed. Thank you, J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councilors– Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call. Thanks— J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
As NCSG members are not bound and have free votes I can only state that: 1) I thank Jonathan and Lisa for their hard work on this, 2) I personally fully support GNSO being added as a signatory, and 3) I'd encourage all of my NCSG colleagues to join me in doing so. ?This is a pretty big deal. The transfer of IP rights is a sign that the transition so many of us have worked so hard for for so long is really about to happen. The IP issue was quite a vexing one for a bit - happy to support the final solution to the problem and to see it implemented. Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 2:42 AM To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right No objection from the RySG. Full support. Keith On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:12 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues - As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements. If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed. Thank you, J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councilors- Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I'd like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today's call. Thanks- J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions ("CWG") for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations - the Country Code Names Supporting Organization ("ccNSO"), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee ("SSAC"), the Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO"), the At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") and the Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") - that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a "Consenting SO/AC" and collectively, the "Names Community") that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
I already indicated my support during the meeting in the chat, and I used my proxy for Marillia as well, however now that we have a few hours to consider the matter, I will encourage her to speak for herself if for some reason she disagrees. Stephanie Perrin On 2016-09-29 22:09, Edward Morris wrote:
As NCSG members are not bound and have free votes I can only state that: 1) I thank Jonathan and Lisa for their hard work on this, 2) I personally fully support GNSO being added as a signatory, and 3) I'd encourage all of my NCSG colleagues to join me in doing so. ?This is a pretty big deal. The transfer of IP rights is a sign that the transition so many of us have worked so hard for for so long is really about to happen. The IP issue was quite a vexing one for a bit - happy to support the final solution to the problem and to see it implemented. Ed Morris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@Verisign.com> *Sent*: Friday, September 30, 2016 2:42 AM *To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Cc*: "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> *Subject*: Re: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right No objection from the RySG. Full support. Keith
On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:12 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues –
As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB *_tomorrow_* (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements.
If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed.
Thank you,
J.
*From: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> *Date: *Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 *To: *GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject: *FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right
Dear Councilors–
Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow).
While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> *Date: *Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 *Subject: *Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right
Dear Chairs,
Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship.
--
Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs,
As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer.
These agreements are:
- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust.
- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR.
- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR.
After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed.
One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose.
The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement."
This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC.
As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
Thanks to everyone who weighed in. Given that there are no objections and several expressions of support, I will ask that the GNSO be added to the other SO and AC organizations on the letter instructing ICANN to execute the IANA IPR agreements. Thanks again for your assistance on this short-schedule task, and have a great weekend. J. From: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 20:42 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right No objection from the RySG. Full support. Keith On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:12 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues – As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements. If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed. Thank you, J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councilors– Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call. Thanks— J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
No objections - I strongly support GNSO participating. Julf
This has my support. Thanks and best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 2:11 AM To: GNSO Council List Cc: Jonathan Robinson Subject: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Council Colleagues – As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements. If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to proceed. Thank you, J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Councilors– Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by 30 SEP (tomorrow). While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB for today’s call. Thanks— J. From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right Dear Chairs, Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. -- Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. - IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee (“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a “Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email, preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. Thank you for your cooperation, Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
participants (6)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Stephanie Perrin -
WUKnoben