Overall, the statement looks good, with a few minor changes.

I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision; it's sufficient to say that we do not object.  Therefore, I would delete the phrase "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  If we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we discussed this particular rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our discussions to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we don't need to take and don't really have.

I agree with Chuck that some mention of timing would be a good idea, but I think it can be very general -- just that we expect this can be done within the currently contemplated timelines.  

With regards to Seun's comment, I'm sure you wrote what you meant to write, based on the way that the "requirement" is expressed in the ICG proposal (which only makes reference to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Systems Operator, and does not refer to the IANA Functions Operator).  However, I think it makes sense from a CWG perspective to make the reference broader, since those who have not studied these proposals closely will not know why we have limited our independence criteria.

Also, the statement refers to the "IANA IPR" but the subject is really the trademarks and domain names.  The IPR actually referred to in the proposal also include public and confidential databases (which we have not discussed at all), so we may want to be more specific.  The reference to the "IANA trademark" is also inaccurate, since there are 3 trademarks (the full name, the acronym and the logo); there are also IANA 3 domain names owned by ICANN. We should be accurate.

With these comments in mind, I would revise the statement as follows:

Dear ICG,

 

The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA trademarks, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the trademark language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA trademarks and domain names. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG’s intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA trademarks and domain names, but rather the CWG anticipated that this would be dealt with as part of the detailed work on implementation of the proposal, including the full preparation of a term sheet and the associated contract.

 

Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG proposal, as well as some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG and a statement by the ICANN board, it has become apparent that further clarification on the CWG position on the IANA trademarks and domain names will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA trademarks and domain names, including referring to the ICG proposal and all three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal.

 

The CWG is able to formally confirm that its position is consistent with that of the other ICG RFP respondents in that the CWG has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA.ORG domain name (and iana.com and iana.net domain names) being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. For the avoidance of doubt, we view the CWG position as also consistent with the ICANN board statement of 15 August 2015 on the same subject.


With regard to implementation of the ICG proposal, the CWG expects that, in co-ordination with the other operational communities, the detailed requirements for such an independent entity will be agreed and specified and that the appropriate independent entity will then be created or selected (and adapted if necessary) such that it can meet these detailed requirements within the currently contemplated timelines.

 

Thank-you for your attention to this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Jonathan & Lise

For and on behalf of the CWG



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

Seun is right – the statement needs to be more general, not about numbering only.

 

 

> The CWG is able to formally confirm that its position is consistent with that of the other ICG RFP respondents in that the CWG has no objection to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator,
>

SO:
I presume you meant to write independent of "IANA functions operator"


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship