Further update on the IANA IPR
All, The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now. Essentially: 1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period. Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose. We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call? Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise
Jonathan: I am OK in accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an independent entity as long as they can be accountable to the community while holding it. -ed On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal.
2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker.
3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities?
In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Thanks Jonathan, I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list. My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed. Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities. From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that. I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC. Alan At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...." So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical"). Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now? Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of *who* that entity might be. Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity? We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states: "It is the *preference* of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be *an acceptable candidate* for this role." [emphasis added] The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none. We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion. In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates. Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team. We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage). The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation. If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later. Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters. As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now. If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan. I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time. Greg On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Creg, these are good questions and I'm sure the CRISP team would be eager to answer them, when they get the opportunity. Actually, its something that was debated widely by the CRISP team before a conclusion was arrived at bearing in mind community feedback. Sincerely On Aug 19, 2015 9:44 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical").
Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now?
Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of *who* that entity might be.
Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity?
We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states:
"It is the *preference* of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be *an acceptable candidate* for this role." [emphasis added]
The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none.
We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion.
In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates.
Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team.
We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage).
The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation.
If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later.
Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters.
As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now.
If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan.
I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Greg, Good questions. From an ICG perspective, the “requirement” that the numbers community set out (see para 2083 of the transition proposal) is that the IANA IPR be held by an entity that is not the IANA numbering services operator. The designation of exactly who that entity will be is not a requirement and is not currently specified in the proposal. The proposal does note that the numbers community suggested the IETF Trust and in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection to the IETF Trust serving as the repository for the trademarks and domain name associated with the provision of the IANA services (see para 34-35). Best, Alissa On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical").
Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now?
Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of who that entity might be.
Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity?
We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states:
"It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role." [emphasis added]
The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none.
We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion.
In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates.
Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team.
We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage).
The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation.
If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later.
Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters.
As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now.
If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan.
I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: +1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alissa, Thank you for the clarification. That is very helpful. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Good questions. From an ICG perspective, the “requirement” that the numbers community set out (see para 2083 of the transition proposal) is that the IANA IPR be held by an entity that is not the IANA numbering services operator. The designation of exactly who that entity will be is not a requirement and is not currently specified in the proposal. The proposal does note that the numbers community suggested the IETF Trust and in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection to the IETF Trust serving as the repository for the trademarks and domain name associated with the provision of the IANA services (see para 34-35).
Best, Alissa
On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical").
Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now?
Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of *who* that entity might be.
Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity?
We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states:
"It is the *preference* of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be *an acceptable candidate* for this role." [emphasis added]
The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none.
We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion.
In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates.
Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team.
We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage).
The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation.
If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later.
Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters.
As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now.
If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan.
I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Greg and CWG members, We'd like to confirm that Alissa's comment correctly captures the number community proposal. It is consistent with our proposal if the criteria is described so that an entity holding the IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain is not the IANA Function Operator for the IANA Numbering Services. It is not a requirement to specify a particular entity holding the IANA trademark and iana.org domain. The IETF Trust is identified as an acceptable option and we note that the IETF Trust has expressed that it is possible for them to be its holder if so desired. Regards, Izumi & Nurani On 2015/08/20 7:15, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Greg,
Good questions. From an ICG perspective, the “requirement” that the numbers community set out (see para 2083 of the transition proposal) is that the IANA IPR be held by an entity that is not the IANA numbering services operator. The designation of exactly who that entity will be is not a requirement and is not currently specified in the proposal. The proposal does note that the numbers community suggested the IETF Trust and in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection to the IETF Trust serving as the repository for the trademarks and domain name associated with the provision of the IANA services (see para 34-35).
Best, Alissa
On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical").
Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now?
Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of who that entity might be.
Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity?
We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states:
"It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role." [emphasis added]
The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none.
We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion.
In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates.
Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team.
We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage).
The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation.
If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later.
Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters.
As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now.
If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan.
I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: +1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Izumi & Nurani, Thank-you for that helpful and timely input. Jonathan & Lise -----Original Message----- From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp] Sent: 20 August 2015 17:21 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Further update on the IANA IPR Greg and CWG members, We'd like to confirm that Alissa's comment correctly captures the number community proposal. It is consistent with our proposal if the criteria is described so that an entity holding the IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain is not the IANA Function Operator for the IANA Numbering Services. It is not a requirement to specify a particular entity holding the IANA trademark and iana.org domain. The IETF Trust is identified as an acceptable option and we note that the IETF Trust has expressed that it is possible for them to be its holder if so desired. Regards, Izumi & Nurani On 2015/08/20 7:15, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Greg,
Good questions. From an ICG perspective, the "requirement" that the numbers community set out (see para 2083 of the transition proposal) is that the IANA IPR be held by an entity that is not the IANA numbering services operator. The designation of exactly who that entity will be is not a requirement and is not currently specified in the proposal. The proposal does note that the numbers community suggested the IETF Trust and in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection to the IETF Trust serving as the repository for the trademarks and domain name associated with the provision of the IANA services (see para 34-35).
Best, Alissa
On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree with the prior statement regarding the "burden of proof" as to the IETF Trust as the future owner of the IANA trademarks and domain name (that it will be the IETF Trust unless it clearly proves "impractical").
Before I go further, I have to ask -- is this a question we need to consider now?
Jonathan has phrased the "minimum condition" consistent with the other proposals as "openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator." There is no mention of who that entity might be.
Is our Chairs' phrasing consistent with the "existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" as stated by the ICG? Or do "the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal)" also include a "requirement" that the IETF Trust be that entity?
We should not try to answer that question off the top of our heads. We should look back to the numbers proposal itself, which states:
"It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role." [emphasis added]
The numbers community has stated a "preference" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to an "entity," but they have expressed no preference regarding which entity that might be. They have stated that the IETF Trust would be "an acceptable candidate for this role." "An acceptable" entity is not a statement that it is "the preferred" entity or even "the most acceptable" entity. We should not, and the ICG should not, read a preference into the numbers proposal where there is none.
We also should not gloss over the words "a candidate" -- the use of "candidate" clearly implies that no decision has been made, even by the numbers community. The use of "candidate" also clearly implies at least the possibility of other candidates, if not the expectation (hopefully, there will not be 20 candidates, as there are now for the US presidential election). The use of "a candidate" rather than "the candidate" underlines the neutral nature of this suggestion.
In sum, this tells us that the numbers community is putting forth the IETF Trust put forth as a candidate. It has not decided on that candidate, it has not stated a preference for that candidate, and it appears to contemplate the possibility of other candidates.
Based on the CRISP proposal itself, accepting the IETF Trust as this entity is not a requirement of the CRISP proposal. While this seems clear on its face, there have been statements by various parties that seem to indicate that it is a requirement (or at least that some wish it were a requirement). It's also notable that what was stated as a "preference" in the CRISP proposal has been hardened into a "requirement" by the ICG. Unfortunately, I think all of this means thst we need to confirm this point with the ICG and with the CRISP Team.
We should also confirm that the ICG and the CRISP Team do not believe there is a stated "preference" for the IETF Trust. Again, that seems clear on its face, but there seems to be a sort of "requirements creep" taking place here. If that's the case, the field is open for other candidates, on an equal footing with the IETF Trust, and the we can examine whether the IETF Trust is an acceptable candidate to the CWG, without giving it any preference (or "burden of proof" advantage).
The march of time may also be contributing to the sense that the IETF Trust is a requirement, or at least a preference, of the ICG. However, the NTIA's recent announcement of the IANA Contract extension should indicate that there will be ample time for implementation.
If the IETF Trust is not a "requirement" or a "preference" of the ICG (via CRISP), we should be able to deal with the "entity" question during implementation (either prior to "going live," or within 120 days after, if the ICANN Board's suggestion is acceptable). If it is an ICG "requirement," we must deal with it now. Even if it is only a "preference," we need to deal with it now, because that mean accepting the "entity" concept now is tantamount to accepting the IETF Trust later.
Personally, I don't think there's any basis in the ICG proposal for treating it as a requirement or a preference, but it's not what I think that matters.
As soon as we have our parameters set (so to speak), we should have the discussion we need to have now, and only the discussion we need to have now.
If we need to have the "IETF Trust" discussion now, I'm ready to contribute now. But if we don't, we should all put that discussion aside so that we can focus on the minimum requirement, as put forth by Jonathan.
I look forward to some clarity at the earliest possible time.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: +1 and I like to highlight part of Alan's mail below: "....either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical,...."
So it has to be clear why seeding to IETF Trust is impractical before other trust option is considered.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Aug 2015 17:25, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Thanks Jonathan,
I have stated my position in a number of forums, but not sure if on this list.
My preference was that ICANN keep the TM and domain registrations, but that ship has apparently sailed.
Given that, and in recognition of the CRISP proposal being the only one that was specific, I can readily live with the assets being taken over by either the IETF Trust, or if that proves impractical, by a specially designed trust in support of all three communities.
From a names perspective, if ICANN and its representatives (including the Board as implied by Steve's messages) are satisfied that the Names community functional use of them is protected, I am happy. It might be emotionally difficult to give up control, but I think that we need to get beyond that.
I believe that should it come to a vote, this position would also be accepted by the ALAC.
Alan
At 19/08/2015 11:03 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
The CWG Co-Chairs had a further brief co-ordination call on the IANA IPR with the CRISP, IANAPLAN and ICG chairs on Monday evening (UTC) and some useful points emerged. Even though we have a CWG meeting tomorrow, we felt it to be useful to update you briefly now.
Essentially:
1. The ICANN statement on the IANA IPR seems to have been well received by all three operational communities in terms of assisting to clarify the position. It will be good to have it formally confirmed by CRISP that the (ICANN) position is consistent with the CRISP proposal. 2. There was a little concern expressed over the apparent distinction between the domain name and the trademark in the ICANN statement, but this has since been addressed on the CWG list by Steve Crocker. 3. As far as the ICG proposal is concerned, this will be put forward to the NTIA in its current form (including references to the IPR), subject to the current public comment period.
Therefore, most simply put, the key immediate question for the CWG is: Are we satisfied with the current wording in the ICG proposal i.e. does it accurately reflect the current CWG position and those of the other responding communities? In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
From the co-chairs perspective, and based on our co-ordination discussion with the other chairs, it will be helpful to all if the CWG can arrive as fast as possible at a minimum position that is consistent with the other proposals i.e. openly accepting the transfer of the IANA IPR to an entity independent of the IANA numbering services operator.
Thereafter, we can continue to work on all of the details as part of the implementation work. As we proceed to work on the implementation, a key early step is likely to be the criteria or requirements for a neutral / independent holder of the IPR (assuming the CWG accepts that). Resolving this would assist any subsequent discussion of the suitability of the IETF Trust as a candidate, in current or future form, or any other such trust to be used for the same purpose.
We believe that focussing on the minimum position should be helpful in getting the CWG to a common position and may even be something we can complete on our Thursday call?
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
My view should be evident by now but for the record, my answer to this question
In the words of the ICG, can we (the CWG) accommodate the existing specified requirements (originating in the CRISP proposal) as part of our planned implementation (to include the IPR issue)?
...is Yes. --MM
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alissa Cooper -
Eduardo Diaz -
Greg Shatan -
Izumi Okutani -
Jonathan Robinson -
Mueller, Milton L -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Seun Ojedeji