- CWG-Stewardship - lists.icann.org

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
by John Poole June 13, 2015

June 13, 2015

CWG, Alan, Greg, Andrew, Milton: Reference to the historical record may also be helpful to resolve this issue (IANA marks): USC/ICANN TRANSITION AGREEMENT (USC is the University of Southern California)— https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/usc-icann-transition-2012-02… which states in 2.1: 2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 2.1 Service Mark and Copyright Assignment. USC hereby assigns and transfers without warranty unto ICANN USC's entire right, title and interest in and to the following: (a) the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" service mark pending registration, the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" common law service mark, the "IANA" service mark pending registration, the "IANA" common law service mark, and the common law service mark in the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (collectively, the "Service Marks"), and the goodwill associated with the Service Marks; and (b) the copyright to, and all other exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works based on, display, and otherwise use, the IANA logo shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Service Mark and Copyright Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit "B" (the "Service Mark and Copyright Assignment")." The University of Southern California – ICANN Transition Agreement is specifically referred to and approved by the United States Government in the original IANA Contract (February 9, 2000) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ianacontract.pdf Nowhere in the historical record do I find any other entity holding or claiming Common Law or Registration rights to the IANA marks prior to the University of Southern California (USC), although RFC 1174 says that "Throughout its entire history, the Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)..." The first reference to the name "IANA" or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority” in the RFC series is in RFC 1060: RFC 1060 --March 1990: “… current information can be obtained from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, port, protocol, etc., please contact the IANA to receive a number assignment. Joyce K. Reynolds Internet Assigned Numbers Authority USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90292-6695 …” US Trademark Registration for IANA shows an original “Filing Date of March 21, 1997” by “Owner (REGISTRANT) University of Southern California NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CALIFORNIA University Park, ADM 352 Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 900895013,” subsequently assigned by USC (“entire interest”) to ICANN http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75… ICANN subsequently filed its own separate registrations of the IANA marks in 2001 and 2007. Domain name iana.org has a "created date" of 1995-06-05 according to the WHOIS, current registrant is ICANN. The historical record, in my view, supports the position that these property rights should remain with ICANN which can then license their use by its affiliate PTI, or any other third party. Best regards, John Poole On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > Greg, not quite. > > You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical > issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it > is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were > to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right > to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be > transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left > because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA > to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > > But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name > resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with > contractual assurances. > > And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. > Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more > disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is > built into code), we would survive. > > Alan > > > > At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Alan, > > You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in the agreements between > ICANN and the other two communities should require ICANN to grant a > worldwide royalty-free license to use the trademarks. This is a simple fix. > If we want to get fancy, there can be a contingent license that > automatically springs into place when the customer separates. > > I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > > Greg > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > wrote: > I refrained from weighing in when this was first discussed and in this > iteration. But I will now. I think that whatever the solution, there must > be some principle adhered to: > > 1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is prepared to defend it if > necessary. > > 2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement with all three users of it > (or the other two if the owner is one of the users) so that if that user > chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used by the others, the TM owner will > grant it all necessary rights and privileges to continue using the TM with > no user disruption. > > In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to be ICANN for the immediate > future, because it will, either directly or through PTI, have agreements > with the RIRs and the IETF and those agreements are reasonable places in > which to embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding and legal resources > to defend the TM if necessary. > > But there are certainly other solutions that could also satisfy both > principles... > >

12 31

Triggering of Special IFR
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Hello all looking at the slide deck for the presentation (downloadable from https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352 ), page 12 , I raised a question on the first Webinar. The slide says: "Review cycles: 1st review to occur no more than 2 years post-transition; then every 5 years. Or by special request of CSC, GNSO, or ccNSO (Special IFR)." I took up this sentence and asked: "A Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO, *or* ccNSO? I was under the impression that a Special IFR can be launched by CSC, GNSO *and* ccNSO" only. I was told, in response, that the slide is correct, and an IFR can be launched by the CSC, or ccNSO or GNSO. The *or* vs. *and* is very important. So I looked at the proposal again, Annex F. " Following the exhaustion of the above escalation mechanisms, the ccNSO and GNSO will be responsible for checking and reviewing the outcome of the CSC process (as defined in Annex G), and the IANA Problem Resolution Process (as defined in Annex J) and for determining whether or not a Special IFR is necessary. After consideration, which may include a public comment period and must include meaningful consultation with other SO/ACs, the Special IFR couldbe triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils according to their normal procedures for determining supermajority. " To me, this translates to: a special IFR can be launched by CSC *and* GNSO *and* ccNSO agreeing that a special IFR needs to be launched. It is impossible for the CSC *or* the GNSO *or* the ccNSO to launch a special IFR singlehandedly. So is the slide on page 12 and the response I was given on the First Webinar right or wrong? This is a serious issue. Kind regards, Olivier

11 20

IANA Functions Usage Analysis
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, I neglected to forward you this blog post earlier, but I am sending along now since it is relevant to our discussions in the CWG. If you have any questions, I¹ve copied the author, Alain Durand, who joined ICANN a few months ago and is following the work of the CWG. Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-functions-usage-analysis IANA Functions Usage Analysis When I joined ICANN a few months ago and learned that part of my role would be supporting the IANAStewardship Transition process, I wanted to learn more about how those functions are actually operated and how much the community uses them. My background has been in the IETF for 20+ years where I chaired several working groups and authored a number of RFC¹s, so I have always known the IANAregistries as a user of the functions, however I was not very intimate with its internal operation. The IANA department performs a set of tasks that involves the coordination of many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. Notably, it maintains registries, which are most often simply text files, for three Internet communities: the Domain Names community, the Numbering Resources community (including the Regional Internet Registries or RIRs) and the Protocol Parameters community (including the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF). In total, the IANA department maintains more than 2,800 registries. I looked back at the various statistics available and compiled usage data over the last five years and I was surprised at how little I knew about the scope of the work being done there. I hope the result of this study will also be helpful to all of those in the community that are actively involved in the transition process. I. Domain Names Community Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs) Requests about ccTLDs can be classified broadly into two categories, depending on the workload they generate: ccTLD (re-)delegations and ccTLD changes such as administrative or technical contact changes and DS record updates. Generic TLDs (gTLDs) Similarly, gTLD requests can be classified broadly in two categories: gTLD (re-)delegations and gTLDchanges such as administrative or technical contact changes, and name server or DS record updates. On this graph, we clearly see the impact of the introduction of new gTLDs. II. Numbers Community IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) The numbers community requests IPv4 unicast address blocks, IPv6 unicast address blocks and blocks of Autonomous Systems Numbers (ASNs). Large IPv6 unicast address blocks were requested by the RIRs prior to 2010 and no additional requests have yet been received. IANA¹s pool of unallocated IPv4 unicast addresses was exhausted in 2011, however since that date, a few IPv4 unicast address blocks were returned to ICANN and later redistributed to the RIRs according to global policies. III. Protocol Parameters Community IETF Registries The vast majority of the registries maintained by ICANN as the IANA function operator are for protocol parameters defined and used by the IETF. Private Enterprise Numbers The most heavily used IETF protocol parameter registry is for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs). PENs are typically used in Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Information Base (MIB) configurations. To make the diagram easier to read, I¹ve separated the PEN requests from the other IETFrequests. IV. Total usage This final graph represents a picture of all the requests processed for all of the three communities Domain Names, Numbering Resources and Protocol Parameters over the last 5 years. Note, to make the graph easier to read, the cc-TLDs and gTLDs delegations/re-delegations are shown on a secondary axis, on the right hand side of the graph. As you can see from the graph with the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests related to delegations/re-delegations of TLDs has grown substantially. Requests from the Numbering Resources community have remained flat, and we are seeing an upswing in Protocol Parameter requests after a lull in mid-2012. Overall, with the exception of the introduction of new gTLDs, the volume of requests related to the IANA functions has remained very predictable over a five-year period. Again, I hope that you found this data helpful, as I know I did, to understand the scope of the IANAfunctions. Those functions are critical to maintain the security and stability of the Internet.

1 0

Volume 6: IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, Blog is posted below: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-dis cussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-disc ussions#> CWG-Stewardship Following the closure of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/CWG+to+Develop+an+IAN A+Stewardship+Transition+Proposal+on+Naming+Related+Functions> ) general public comment period on 20 May (with comments by those relying on translations of the proposal having a closing date of 26 May), the ICANN CWG-Stewardship staff support has compiled the comments into the following key synthesis documents: * Draft compilation of major trends in the public comments received <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Draft%20compilati on%20of%20major%20trends%20in%20the%20CWGV1.2.pptx?version=1&modificationDat e=1432814833000&api=v2> (1 June) * Public Comment Review Tool Action Items <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/Color%20Coded%20P ublic%20Comment%20Review%20Tool-Action%20Items-26%20May.docx?version=1&modif icationDate=1432815245000&api=v2> (26 May) – identifies which public comments relate to which Design Team's work, with proposed actions in response * CWG - Public Comment Review Tool <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/CWG%20-%20Public% 20Comment%20Review%20Tool%20%C2%AD26%20May%202015.docx?version=1&modificatio nDate=1432661780000&api=v2> (26 May) The final staff report is still pending publication. The 49 submissions received before the close of the comment period on 20 May can be found here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53776547> and can be downloaded as a single ZIP file <https://community.icann.org/pages/downloadallattachments.action?pageId=5377 6547> . Additional comments submitted beyond the 20 May can be found on the comments page archive <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> . The CWG-Stewardship plans to publish its final version of its draft proposal on 8 June. The CWG-Stewardship will hold two webinars <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352> to help enable the community to better understand this final draft version of the proposal * 11 June from 6:00 – 7:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150611T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) * 11 June from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We binar&iso=20150611T13&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30> ) CCWG-Accountability The general public comment period for those responding to the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) call for public comments <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> on the initial draft report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.1 MB] of Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements has now closed. However, the comment period remains open until 12 June for those relying on the translated versions of the report's executive summary. As of 7 June, 60 comments have been submitted to the public archive of comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04 may15/> . Translations of the executive summary and full draft report can be found under Section III: Relevant Resources <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en#section3> of the call for public comments page or on the CCWG-Accountability wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Draft+Report> . IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability at ICANN 53 The table below is correct as of 8 June 2015. For the most up-to-date version of which sessions will include IANA stewardship related discussions, see the full ICANN 53 schedule <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full> . DateTimeMeetingRoom 18 Jun 9:00-17:00ICG Face-to-Face Meeting San Telmo 19 Jun 8:00-18:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 Retiro A 9:00-17:00ICG Face-to-Face Meeting San Telmo 20 JunNo IANA or ICANN accountability meetings scheduled to date 21 Jun 8:30-10:00GAC: Transition of US Stewardship of IANA San Telmo 10:30-12:00GAC: Enhancing ICANN Accountability San Telmo 11:00-12:00ALAC: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Golden Horn 11:15-11:45GNSO: Update on IANA Stewardship Transition Retiro B 11:45-12:15GNSO: Update on CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Retiro B 13:30-14:30ALAC: ICANN Accountability and Transparency Golden Horn 15:00-16:00 CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the ICANN Board Retiro C 18:30-20:00 Evolving ICANN Accountability Libertador C 22 Jun 10:30-13:00 CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Town Hall Meeting Libertador AB 16:45-18:00 CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session Libertador AB 23 Jun 8:30-17:45 Joint Meetings with the Board Libertador AB 10:00-10:30SSAC: Private meeting with the CCWG co-Chairs TBC 14:00-15:45ccNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability La Pampa 15:00-17:00RSSAC: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability (TBC) Auditorio 16:15-20:00 At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function and Accountability Golden Horn 24 Jun 9:30-10:30GAC: IANA Stewardship Transition (cont.) San Telmo 9:30-10:45ccNSO: Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG Proposals) La Pampa 10:30-12:00 AoC and Organizational Reviews: Supporting ICANN Accountability Libertador AB 11:00-12:30GAC: Enhancing ICANN Accountability (cont.) San Telmo 13:00-15:00GNSO: IANA Stewardship Transition/ICANN Accountability (TBC) Libertador C 14:00-15:00 Joint Meeting of the ASO/NRO with the ICANN Board Martin Fierro 15:30-17:00 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 Libertador AB 25 Jun 8:30-10:00 CWG-Stewardship Working Session La Pampa 10:15-11:45 CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 La Pampa 8:30-12:30ICG Working Session 3 Libertador AB Updates on other transition-related activities Transition timeline and implementation Following a request by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ) to thechairs of the ICG <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150506/ 77c3dd16/attachment.pdf> [PDF 575 KB] and CCWG-Accountability <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-May/00288 0.html> for information on projected dates for completing the stewardship transition, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) wrote to the three operational communities (here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000553.html> , here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000554.html> and here <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000555.html> ) for more information on how long it would take to implement each of the three components of the transition proposal. The IETF Working Group on Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/documents/> ) has responded <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000607.html > , stating they believe the protocol parameters component could be implemented promptly, pending more information about the possible involvement of the protocol parameters community in the CWG-Stewardship's proposed Post-TransitionIANA (PTI). The announcement of Fadi Chehadé's departure as ICANN CEO in 2016 On 21 May, ICANN's CEO, Fadi Chehadé announced <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-21-en> that he would leave his position in March 2016. Following his announcement, the NTIA released a short statement <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2015/statement-assistant-secretary-st rickling-icann-ceo-chehade> , noting, "A successful transition does not depend on the leadership of a single individual, but rather the engagement of the global multistakeholder community working collaboratively to ensure that the Internet remains open, secure, and resilient." IANA-related discussions at WSIS Forum 2015 and EuroDIG 2015 * On 28 May, the ICANN Cross-Community Working Group on Internet Governance <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43984275> organized a session at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2015, titled IANAStewardship Transition – A Live Example of a Multi-Stakeholder Process <http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269> . * On 5 June, the EuroDIG held a session, The IANA Stewardship Transition: A Test Case for Internet Governance? <http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/The_IANA_Stewardship_Transition:_A_Test_Case_fo r_Internet_Governance%3F> U.S. Government processes related to the IANA stewardship transition * On 5 June 2014, The US Government Accountability Office (GAO <http://www.gao.gov/> ) was asked by the Chairs of the U.S. Government's House Energy and Commerce Committee <http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/house-republicans-request-gao -examination-administration-proposal-regarding-future> to review the NTIA's plan to transition its oversight of the IANA functions. * In response to this, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP <https://www.nro.net/crisp-team> ) Team submitted awritten response to the GAO <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/GAO-Engagement-on-the-Internet-Domai n-Name-System-Discussion-Guide-CRISP.pdf> [PDF 60 KB] on May 12. * Also on May 12, a revised version of 2014's Defending Internet Freedom Act of 2014 (H.R. 5737 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737> ) was submitted. This year's version, Defending Internet Freedom Act (H.R. 2251 <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2251/text> ), is, in contrast to the previous version of the bill, supportive of the global multistakeholder efforts to develop a transition plan for IANA's stewardship, but still would require specific conditions to be met before the NTIA could complete the transition. * On June 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2578 <https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2578> ). It contains similar language to the previous Act, which prevented government funds being used by the NTIA to complete the transition of its stewardship over IANA until the end of the financial year in September. The Act next goes to the U.S. Senate for its consideration. Timeline of key events and processes related to the IANA stewardship transition 10 Jun 2015 Last day for community comments on the translated versions of ICANNaccountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). 11Jun 2015 TheCWG-Stewardship presents revised version of its proposal to their chartering members (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC) for review and adoption. 11-25 Jun 2015ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSACreview and consider adoption of CWG-Stewardship's revised proposal. 5-18 Jun 2015 TheCWG-Accountability reviews public comments on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements and prepares documents for ICANN 53 briefings with the community. 14 Jun 2015 Deadline for numbers communityto comment <https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num bering-services> on NRO's Draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services <http://www.nro.net/sla> 29 Jun 2015ICANN staff submits a report of the public comments received on CCWG-Accountability's draft report on Work Stream 1-related ICANN accountability enhancements. 21-25 Jun 2015All ICANN communities and other partiesmeet during ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/> in Buenos Aires, and online via remote participation, to discuss the IANA Stewardship Transition in a number of cross-community as well as stakeholder-specific sessions. (See "IANAStewardship and ICANN Accountability discussions in Buenos Aires" table of events above). 25 Jun 2015 TheCWG-Stewardship delivers the final proposal on the naming related portion to theIANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://ianacg.org/> ). 20 Jul 2015 TheCCWG-Accountabilitypublishes second, revised, version of draft report on Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements for public comment. 29 Aug 2015 Last day for community comments on the second draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1). Aug-Sep 2015Community comment period on interim final proposal, consisting of names, numbers and protocol parameter components, as compiled by the ICG. 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015ALAC, ASO, ccNSO, GAC and GNSOreview and consider adoption of the CCWG-Accountability's revised proposal. 22 Oct 2015 TheCCWG-Accountabilitypresents Work Stream 1 accountability enhancements report to the ICANN Board. Week 3, Oct 2015 TheICGposts final combined proposal. Post-ICANN54, TBDICANN Board transmits final IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal to NTIA. Latest documents and drafts 9 June 2015 CWG-Stewardship – Final version of names proposal <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49351404/FinalTransitionPr oposal_v6%20-%20Redline%20-%20FINAL.docx?version=1&modificationDate=14339904 28511&api=v2> , Version 6 29 May 2015ICG – Combined IANA Stewardship proposal <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4p5yg2usat0sfmd/combined-proposal-v0.doc?dl=0> , Version 0 27 May 2015ICG – IANA Stewardship Proposal Timeline Graphic <https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcqsgfyzuwhluij/TimelineGraphic-v11.xlsx?dl=0> , Version 11 ICANN – IANA Functions Usage Analysis <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/iana-functions-usage-analysis> IANA stewardship in the news 4 Jun 2015США прибирают интернет к рукам: Конгресс США выступил против международного управления интернетом <http://www.gazeta.ru/tech/2015/06/04/6745274/americans-whant-to-take-over-i nternet.shtml> , газета.ru [RU] 1 Jun 2015IANA Transition Bill Puts Community in the Driver's Seat <http://www.bna.com/iana-transition-bill-b17179927231/> , Bloomberg BNA [EN] 25 May 2015Los riesgos de "más gobierno" en Internet <http://abcblogs.abc.es/ley-red/public/post/los-riesgos-de-mas-gobierno-en-i nternet-15924.asp/> Blogs ABC [ES] Internet-Verwaltung: "Die ICANN wurde um die IANA herum gebaut", Heise Online <http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Internet-Verwaltung-Die-ICANN-wurde-um-die-I ANA-herum-gebaut-2663254.html> [DE] Upcoming meetings and teleconferences 9 Jun 2015CCWG-Accountability Meeting #36 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778746> , 6:00-9:00 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #58 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 17:00-19:00 UTC 10 Jun 2015ICG Teleconference <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/> , 12:00-14:00 UTC 11 Jun 2015Webinar: briefing on final CWG-Stewardship proposal <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778352> , 6:00-07:30 UTC & 13:00- 14:30 UTC CWG-Stewardship Meeting #59 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Meetings> , 11:00-12:00 UTC 18-25 Jun 2015ICANN 53 <https://buenosaires53.icann.org/> , including pre-meetings, Buenos Aires 17-18 Jul 2015 CCWG-Accountability Face-to-Face Meeting, Paris, France 18-19 Sep 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, TBC You can play a role in ICANN's future… Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of the IANA function's stewardship and ICANNaccountability. For information on joining CWG-Stewardship, contact grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org.For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact acct-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson 11 June 2015

1 0

Public Comment Review Tool
by Grace Abuhamad June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear all, Attached is the updated Public Comment Review Tool. I have included a redline and a clean version. The document is now 300-pages, so quite lengthy to review. In the interest of time, to make sure those who submitted comments can see how the CWG addressed their submissions, we will post this Review Tool to the Wiki and Public Comment page. Should there be a need for further updates, we can update the documents as requested. The Wiki page is here: https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw. Best, Grace

3 2

CONGRATS! Proposal Submitted to Chartering Orgs!
by Grace Abuhamad June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear all, Below is the message sent to Chartering Organizations to submit the proposal. For the CWG, I¹ve attached the redline version as well, so that you can track all the changes made. Congratulations to all! From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Byron Holland <byron.holland(a)cira.ca>, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)netnod.se> Cc: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Subject: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC Dear SO and AC Chairs, CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA Stewardship Transition The Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its proposed response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition for your consideration and approval as per its Charter. The response is the result of extensive work by the CWG¹s 19 members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors over the past year, which included over 100 calls or meetings, 2 public consultations and more than 4,000 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration. As noted in the CWG-Stewardship proposal itself, the proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this proposal will require revision. We also note that there are certain implementation elements that will require further dialogue in the near future, including with the other operational communities, and these have been marked as such in the final proposal. Two specific issues are particularly important to highlight. One is the finalization of the service level expectations (SLEs), where the proposal includes a set of agreed principles between the CWG and IANA, but these remain to be finalized in the form of a mutually agreed set of SLEs. A detailed plan for this finalisation is being worked on and it is our view that this detail, whilst vitally important, does not impact on the substance of the proposal put to you for approval. The second issue entails the location of intellectual property rights and this needs further discussion with the other respondents to the ICG RFP and ICANN. As per the CWG-Stewardship¹s Charter we now seek your approval to submit this final proposal to the ICG and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 25 June 2015 to meet the overall timing requirements which would allow the transition to proceed, noting that final approval is conditional on the approval of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations. We will make ourselves, together with or other key contributors, available to you at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw <https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw> . Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

3 2

Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #59 9 June 2015
by Brenda Brewer June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 59 on 11 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778034 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items none Notes 1. Opening Remarks * Final proposal to be distributed to chartering organizations later today * No objections or minority statements received * Need to start looking ahead to the ICANN meeting in BA in order to secure the support of the chartering organizations * Need support from the members and participants in doing so. All to serve as ambassadors for the proposal and assist in securing support. 2. Transfer of Final Proposal * CWG-Co-Chairs to transfer proposal to chartering organizations today together with a coverning note which will also highlight work remaining such as SLEs (staff to project manage together with DTA members, also ensure NTIA approval for such work as well as secure possible budget needed). * Consider renaming DTA to SLE ad-hoc working group with possible additions to original membership of DTA which includes 3 ccTLD and 3 gTLD registry reps (see also proposed work plan circulated by Paul Kane to CWG mailing list). A URL link will be created so that work in progress can be followed by anyone interested. Do GNSO and ccNSO need to give formal approval? Yes, it may be helpful to get ccNSO/GNSO support for continuing with this work - can be done as part of the hand-over of the final proposal. * IPR issue will also be flagged in the cover letter and discussed with the client committee. Will require further co-ordination with ICG and other operational communities. 3. Communication Points * Two webinars taking place today (one this morning, one later this afternoon). Over 60 participants attended the first webinar - several questions regarding process following adoption by chartering organizations. * Slide deck will be made available to all, in pdf and ppt format, the latter allowing for customization as needed. * Linkage with CCWG needs to be well understood. Chairs of both groups working on a blog that will highlight linkage and co-operation between the two groups as well as the conditionality 4. ICANN 53 -- Buenos Aires * See ICANN 53 relevant meetings schedule on the wiki ( <https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw) * Important to take people along on the journey that has occurred, but also explaining substance and linkage with CCWG. * Clarify that both ccNSO and GNSO need to approve initiation of IFR (ensure that there is no misunderstanding). For example, 'Both of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils (each by a supermajority)'. * Also clarify that CSC escalates to ccNSO and GNSO, does not initiate an IFR on its own. * CCWG will take lead on town hall meeting, with contribution from CWG-Stewardship. 5. Beyond ICANN 53 * Provided no objections are made / approvals received in BA, transmittal to the ICG would be the next step. * How to follow up on work of SlEs as well as implementation related issues? Charter foresees that 'the CWG will consult with the ICG representatives to determine when it can consider its work completed'. * Advisable to have process in place if questions come back from chartering organizations / ICG. * Need to revisit mandate for Sidley, in consultation with ICANN to determine what role, if any it would play following submission of final proposal to chartering organizations, in relation to implementation.

1 0

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Each means both in this sentence. (A bill >requires approval of each house of Congress >before it is sent to the President.) >Either would mean one or the other. > >That said both also works. > >On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A few minutes late, but... > >In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with >the current wording about the optional Public >Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. > >However, the wording change I requested to >clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. > >...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of >the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... > >should read > >...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... > >(Caps added to highlight the change in this >message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) > >Alan > > >At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > >>Forwarding again to Client Committee. >> >>From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org > >>Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM >>To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org >, " >>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final >>Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June >> >>Dear all, >> >>During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and >>final reading of the Proposal. Changes were >>made live, and outstanding changes were noted >>as action items (see notes below). The staff >>team has reviewed the proposal and completed >>all actions listed. Please note that Sidley >>will provide a final review as well which >>includes some work on the implementation text >>in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. >> >>With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into >>a final review period that lasts until 23:59 >>UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, >>the intention of the review period is to do a >>âproofreadâ and notify the group of any >>errors. During this period of 26 hours, any >>statements or comments on the Proposal may also >>be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on >>the call, if you are making a statement, please >>be sure to identify whether you do so as a >>member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, >>as an individual representing a specific >>organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. >> >>After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will >>work with staff to rectify any errors, update >>section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver >>the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on >>11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how >>the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, >>through its members and participants, to >>coalesce support for the Proposal among >>Chartering Organizations. In addition, there >>are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC >>and one at 13:00 UTC): >><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. >>These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the >>broader community about the contents of the >>final proposal. Finally, as we head into >>ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the >>schedule of sessions that relate to the >>CWG-Stewardship work: >><https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. >> >>Thank you all for your great work and >>dedication to the process. Please contact us if >>you have any questions regarding the process or >>administration over the next 48h. >> >>Best, >>Gramika (Grace+Marika) >> >> >>From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org > >>Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM >>To: " cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, >>Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 >> >> >>Dear all, >> >>The notes, recordings and transcripts for the >>CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are >>available here: >><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 >> >>Kind regards, >>Brenda >> >> >> >> >> >>Action Items >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" >> >>Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the >>defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >>Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" >> >>Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. >> >>Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble >> >>Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter >> >>Action: conform text to the defined terms used >>in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >> >> >> >>Notes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>1. Opening Remarks >>Â· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. >>Â· Following closure of this meeting, >>staff will send final document to the CWG. >>Â· CWG will then have 24h to notify the >>group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen >>issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE >>Â· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. >> >>2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses >> >>Can expect a final version to be circulated in >>the next 24h. Staff is working on >>consistency-checking across the responses. The >>document is frozen as of 1 June. >> >>3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal >> >>The letter and responses from ICANN are posted >>on Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. >> >>Staff have included the responses in Section IV >>(and included an Annex to for the Finance information). >> >>4. Last Review of Final Proposal >> >>On screen now is version 5. The difference >>between the previous version and the latest is >>that the Chairs took some time to review which >>items were still open and which had been >>resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key >>outstanding issues. This latest version also >>includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. >> >>Paragraph 108: Change the wording from >>"ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the >>definition in the footnote. ICANN has control >>and ownership of PTI and the implementation >>documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. >> >>Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" >> >>Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. >> >>Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from >>both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. >> >>Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 >> >>Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles >>are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. >> >>Action: conform text to the defined terms used >>in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >>Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" >> >>Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. >> >>Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table >> >>Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble >> >>Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter >> >>Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg >> >>5. Overall Timeline / Milestones >> >> a. Communications >> >> b. Webinars on 11 June >> >> c. Sessions at ICANN 53 >> >>6. AOB >> >> a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement >> >> b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call >> >> c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June >> >>7. Closing Remarks >> >>After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with >>comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Cwg-client mailing list >>Cwg-client(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

5 7

drift in v5
by manning June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? CWG email re new draft - -<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html> Draft Document - <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e…> Proposed text in most recent document - > " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. “ this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would this make the ICG’s job of aligning the various proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. manning bmanning(a)karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

13 33

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Greg, there you go down the rabbit hole. Yes, I said the problems COULD arise regardless of the home of the server the IANA.ORG domain points to. And yes, I have complete confidence that there are technical solutions (even ones that *I* could develop, and that is certainly not my field of expertise). BUT developing them is not within our mandate nor on our critical path. THAT is why I suggested stopping at principles for the moment. Alan At 11/06/2015 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >I was going to go into the technical issues >regarding managing the domain name issue, but I >stopped myself, ssince as you say these issues >will exist regardless of who is the domain >registrant. Indeed, if the IETF Trust were to >start operating the <http://iana.org>iana.org >website after the transition, those issues would arise quickly. > >Since you've opened the door to the subject, >I'll walk in. (FWIW, I probably spend far more >time these days dealing with tech issues than pure trademark issues....) > >There are several alternatives. First, the page >at <http://iana.org>iana.org could be used as a >disambiguation page. An example of this can be >found at <http://www.scrabble.com>www.scrabble.com. > >Inline image 1 > > >Indeed, the current <http://iana.org>iana.org >home page is already very close to this, with >separate sections for domain names, number >resources and protocol assignments. Clicking on >these leads to third level pages under domains, >numbers and protocols. These could easily be >reworked into subdomains ><http://domains.iana.org>domains.iana.org, ><http://numbers.iana.org>numbers.iana.org and ><http://protocols.iana.org>protocols.iana.org, >which could then be hosted on servers managed by >the community that has separated from ICANN as >the IFO. Alternatively, the link for domains, >numbers or protocols could go to an entirely >different second level domain (e.g., iananumbers.web). > >Another alternative is for the separating >customer to stop using the ><http://iana.org>iana.org domain entirely, but >the first two options are probably more >palatable and less disruptive. If this is >approach is taken, you would probably want some >form of notification (I would say a pop-up, but >pop-up blockers make that suboptimal) of the new >domain name, at least for a period of time. > >This could be dealt with by contract now or at >the time of the split (or some combination of the two). > >Greg > >On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Greg, not quite. > >You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. >There are also technical issues. Currently ><http://iana.org>iana.org has uses within all >three communities and it is simple to do since >it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there >were to be a split at some point, it is not just >a matter of granting the right to use the TM, >but creating the mechanics to allow the domain >name to be transparently used by all three >entities. And if one of the groups has left >because they no longer have faith in the ability >of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > >But the problems will be there regardless of >where the <http://iana.org>iana.org name >resolves to if there is a split. The best we can >do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > >And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when >this was first discussed. Although no one wants >to stop using <http://iana.org>iana.org, and it >would probably more disruptive for the IETF than >others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive. > >Alan > > > >At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >>Alan, >> >>You took the words out of my mouth. A clause >>in the agreements between ICANN and the other >>two communities should require ICANN to grant a >>worldwide royalty-free license to use the >>trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to >>get fancy, there can be a contingent license >>that automatically springs into place when the customer separates. >> >>I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. >> >>Greg >> >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan >>Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>I refrained from weighing in when this was >>first discussed and in this iteration. But I >>will now. I think that whatever the solution, >>there must be some principle adhered to: >>1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is >>prepared to defend it if necessary. >>2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement >>with all three users of it (or the other two if >>the owner is one of the users) so that if that >>user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used >>by the others, the TM owner will grant it all >>necessary rights and privileges to continue >>using the TM with no user disruption. >>In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to >>be ICANN for the immediate future, because it >>will, either directly or through PTI, have >>agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those >>agreements are reasonable places in which to >>embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding >>and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary. >>But there are certainly other solutions that >>could also satisfy both principles. >>Like Chuck, I may be naive (something I have >>rarely been accused of), but I cannot see the >>details of the implementation being of concern >>to the AC/SO (with the possible exception of the ASO and the IPC). >>Alan >> >>At 10/06/2015 08:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>>Maarten, >>>The simple rationale for the numbers proposal, >>>and the protocol communityÃ¢s acceptance of >>>it, was that both of them em insist on having >>>the right to switch IANA functions operator at >>>some time in the future. If the IANA >>>trademarks and domains are Ã¢ownedÃ¢â¢â¬ by >>>a single IFO we cannot have that separability. >>>If we want the IFO to be able to change, then >>>the trademarks and domains must not he owned >>>by either ICANN (which is the >>>Ã¢ownerÃ¢/controller of PTIof PTI) or any >>>subsequent IFO. ItÃ¢s that t simple. >>> >>>--MM >>> >>>From: >>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:22 PM >>>To: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan >>>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>Next to SeunÃ¢s argument, I think the >>>trademdemarks should remain with ICANN as it >>>is ICANN that will grant PTI the right to >>>operate the IANA functions through the >>>contract. It seems logical to me that ICANN >>>only provides a license to PTI to use the >>>trademarks through the same contract and not >>>transfer the trademarks themselves. >>> >>>The further question is if in the case of a >>>separation the assets will go from PTI to the >>>new entity (probably in practise: yes) but in >>>a legal sense I would assume that PTI returns >>>the assets to ICANN and that ICANN provide these to the new operator. >>> >>>From: Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > >>>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 22:05 >>>To: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>>Cc: SIDN SIDN >>><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, >>>"<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >>><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>Hi Greg, >>>Perhaps its worth noting that the other 2 >>>operational communities are still considering >>>whether to contract directly with PTI as their >>>proposals currently indicates contracting with >>>ICANN. So if for instance there is a need for >>>numbers community to move its functions, it >>>would be appropriate that the entity its >>>contracting with provides access to the IANA trademarks accordingly. >>>As far as PTI is concerned at the moment, its >>>separation mechanisms as proposed by CWG is >>>largely based on the names community (with the >>>other 2 communities having optional liaison >>>roles). Based on that, i don't see the other 2 >>>communities agreeing to transfer the IANA >>>transdemarks (which is for all 3 operational >>>communities) to PTI whose accountability mechanism is largely names based. >>>Regards >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Greg Shatan >>><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > wrote: >>>Maarten, >>> >>>That is not my understanding of >>>separation. If ICANN selects a new provider, >>>that provider would take all of the assets of >>>PTI (including the trademarks, under this >>>scenario), so it could provide the IANA >>>services. PTI would then be wound down and >>>ultimately dissolved by ICANN. Recall that >>>PTI is a controlled entity of ICANN and would >>>remain so throughout. In this case, the IANA >>>operations are separated from PTI. >>> >>>If PTI is actually separated (spun out) from >>>ICANN so that it is no longer under ICANN >>>control, it would be done to further separate >>>the IANA Functions from ICANN and IANA would >>>continue as a going concern (active business). >>> >>>Under no circumstances does PTI become >>>separated from ICANN without continuing to >>>serve as the IANA operator, yet continue to hold IANA-related assets. >>> >>>Greg >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Maarten Simon >>><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl> wrote: >>>Hi Greg, >>> >>>I would like to respond to your suggestion: >>> >>>'An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>>and practice. This also contributes to >>>separability, since all of the IFO-related >>>assets would be in a single entity.Ã¢ ¢ >>> >>>If PTI is separated, ICANN will select a new >>>IANA provider. Am I correct that if the IANA >>>trademarks rest with PTI, we will than have to >>>rename the services after the separation and >>>they will not any longer be named the IANA services ? >>> >>>If that is correct, I rather keep the rights in ICANN. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Maarten >>> >>>From: Greg Shatan >>><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 21:06 >>>To: manning <<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> >>>Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >>><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>ICANN is an appropriate owner of the IANA >>>trademarks. PTI is also an appropriate owner >>>of the IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust does >>>not appear to be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. >>> >>>A trademark is an indicator of source or >>>origin. The owner of a trademark should be >>>the ultimate source of the goods and services >>>offered under that trademark. In the most >>>straightforward case, the trademark owner >>>offers those goods and services themselves or >>>through a subsidiary. The trademark owner can >>>license the mark to third parties to offer >>>goods and services under the mark; but, >>>consistent with their status as the ultimate >>>source, the trademark owner is required by law >>>to exercise continuing quality controls over >>>the goods and services offered by the licensee >>>and the use of the trademark by the >>>licensee. A trademark owner cannot merely >>>"hold the asset" as CRISP proposed. Ownership >>>of a trademark fundamentally involves being >>>the Ã¢source or originÃnÃ¢ of the goods and >>>services and fulfilling the Ã¢quality >>>controlÃ¢â¢â¬ oversight role, among other things. >>> >>>Quality control generally involves approvals >>>by the licensor of any potential new products >>>or services, and approvals of any changes in >>>products or services (what they are, how they >>>are offered, methods and processes, etc.), as >>>well as ongoing monitoring of quality. The >>>benchmark typically is that licensee's level >>>of quality should be at least as high as the >>>goods and services offered by the licensor >>>(i.e., the owner of the mark and the ultimate >>>source/origin of the goods/services). This is >>>all set forth in a trademark license between >>>the licensee ans licensor. If a trademark >>>license has no quality control provisions, or >>>the quality control provisions are not >>>adequate or not adequately exercised, the >>>license may be deemed a Ã¢Ånaked >>>license,Ã¢ exposing the trademark to the risk >>>of abandonment (loss of validity as a >>>trademark, and loss of the right to claim >>>ownership and usage rights of the mark). When >>>a licensee uses a trademark, all goodwill >>>(brand reputation) goes to the owner, not the >>>licensee. The owner is the holder of that goodwill. >>> >>>I don't see how the IETF Trust makes legal >>>sense as the owner of the IANA >>>Trademarks. The IETF Trust is not and does >>>not intend to be the ultimate source and >>>origin of IANA services. Unlike copyrights >>>and patents, trademarks can't be owned by >>>administrators; they need to be owned by the >>>source of the services. Further, the IETF >>>Trust is clearly not granting ICANN the right >>>to provide the IANA Services, so it is even >>>more inappropriate for the IETF Trust to be >>>the owner of the mark associated with those services. >>> >>>An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>>and practice. This also contributes to >>>separability, since all of the IFO-related assets would be in a single entity. >>> >>>If we assume for a moment that the IETF Trust >>>were to own the IANA trademarks, significant issues arise. >>> >>>In a trademark license, the IETF Trust, as >>>licensor, would have the power to terminate >>>the license according to its terms (e.g., for >>>material breach of the agreement, misuse of >>>the trademark, etc.) or to decide not to renew >>>the license, in which case ICANN would no >>>longer have the right to use the IANA >>>trademark in the provision of services. It >>>would be inappropriate for the IETF Trust to >>>have this power, without accountability to and >>>oversight by the names and numbers >>>communities. A mechanism would need to built for that. >>> >>>Quality control presents another >>>challenge. In virtually all circumstances, a >>>licensor exercises these quality control >>>obligations through an employee or employees >>>knowledgeable and capable of exercising >>>quality control over the licensee and its >>>services. .It may also be appropriate for the >>>operational communities to be involved in >>>quality control and other aspects of the >>>license as well, especially since quality >>>control and trademark usage guidelines can be >>>changed from time to time, typically at the >>>licensorÃ¢s discretion, andand since the >>>IETF is not in a position to exercise quality >>>control in the names and numbers space. This >>>may require amendment of the IETF Trust >>>Agreement, as well as the drafting of a somewhat unusual trademark license. >>> >>>Furthermore, the IETF Trust would also be >>>responsible for policing and enforcement of >>>the trademark against third parties and for >>>maintenance of trademark registrations. >>> >>>It is not clear how the IETF Trust intends to carry out any of these roles. >>> >>>Also, for the IETF Trust to become the owner >>>of the IANA trademark, ICANN would need to >>>assign all of its right, title and interest in >>>and to the IANA trademark to the IETF Trust, >>>along with all goodwill relating to the mark >>>(typically, in exchange for good and valuable >>>consideration). This may require a valuation >>>of the IANA trademark and its associated >>>goodwill, which in turn may have tax or other >>>financial consequences for one or both parties. >>> >>>Finally, the IETF Trust, as such, may not be >>>capable of owning the IANA Trademark, since >>>the IETF Trust does not appear to be a >>>Ã¢â¬legal entity.Ã¢ If this is correct, >>>the Trustees (in their roole as Trustees) are >>>the collective owners of the IANA Trademark >>>(in trust for the IETF, as Beneficiaries of >>>the IETF Trust), and would need to enter into >>>the trademark license (again, in their role as >>>Trustees of the Trust). This appears to be >>>consistent with Section 9.5 of the Amended and >>>Restated Trust Agreement and the ownership of >>>the IETF trademarks (which are owned by >>>Ã¢The Trustees of the IETETF TrustÃ¢ ) in >>>the USPTO database. (Oddly, this is >>>inconsistent with the IETF General Trademark >>>License (on the IETF Trust website) which >>>states that the IETF Trust is the licensor of >>>the IETF marks, and which also lacks appropriate quality control provisions.) >>> >>>Greg Shatan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:18 AM, manning >>><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >>>Missed the attachment which now iis attached! >>>manning >>><mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >>>PO Box 12317 >>>Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >>><tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >>>On 10June2015Wednesday, at 0:12, manning >>><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 19 May 2015, the number community >>> provided specific feedback regarding the need >>> for alignment on the IETF trademark and >>> domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). >>> > >>> > Did you notice that the most recent draft >>> (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday >>> morning specifically moves farther away from >>> this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN >>> rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? >>> > >>> > CWG email re new draft - -< >>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html >>> > >>> > Draft Document - < >>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e…>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e… >>> > >>> > >>> > Proposed text in most recent document - >>> > >>> >> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, >>> royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license >>> to use the IANA trademark and all related >>> trademarks, and all applications and >>> registrations therefor, for use in connection >>> with PTIÃ¢s activities under the ICANN-PTIPTI Contract. Ã¢ >>> > >>> > this moves the draft farther away from the >>> received comments, and would this make the >>> ICGÃ¢s job of aligning the va various >>> proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? >>> > >>> > It might be premature to go to BA with this >>> as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. >>> > >>> > >>> > manning >>> > <mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >>> > PO Box 12317 >>> > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >>> > <tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: <tel:%2B2348035233535>+2348035233535 >alt email:<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >Content-Type: image/png; name="image.png" >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image.png" >Content-ID: <ii_14de0cbf61d40fdc> >X-Attachment-Id: ii_14de0cbf61d40fdc >

2 1