All, I just wanted to add a further reminder to review the attached draft of principles and requirements in preparation for our upcoming call. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date: Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] DT-IPR Draft Document To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, cwg-stewardship@icann.org All, This document was circulated (Re-attached) immediately prior to our last call of 2015 and we agreed to come back to it at our first meeting in 2016. This meeting will take place on Tuesday next week. As you will recall, our response to the ICG RFP was essentially silent on the IANA IPR issue and we have since picked it up through the work of DT-IPR. The CWG as a whole needs to pick up and discuss the issues from DT-IPR and move these forward. Lise & myself have kept an open channel with the CRISP & IANAPLAN groups. Greg (as DT-IPR lead) has been present on the last two co-ordination calls. As you may recall, CRISP was an advocate of transferring the IANA IPR to the IETF Trust in the CRISP response to the ICG RFP. There is by now some pressure from the other OCs for us to move this along since the CRISP proposal has been in place for some time now. The CRISP folks have reviewed the DT-IPR work and have provided input as to where there may be common ground and divergence on the principles. We will share the CWG. In addition, Jari Arkko has circulated some initial work on what the intellectual property arrangements / terms could look like and we can share that with you. Greg has already provided feedback to Jari and will now doubt share that with this group. I trust that this provides coherent background for our discussions next week. Thanks and best wishes for 2016, Jonathan (in co-ordination with Lise) *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* 14 December 2015 09:12 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] DT-IPR Draft Document All, In anticipation of our call tomorrow (Tuesday), I attach a draft document from DT-IPR. These should be viewed as proposed or potential principles and requirements for the consideration of the CWG. In particular, there are several items where choices have been laid out for discussion by the CWG, which should lead to making choices on these alternatives. I look forward to our discussion. Greg