CWG Position on IANA IPR
All, You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose: Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Please see below for such a draft. Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise -- Dear ICG, The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Jonathan & Lise For and on behalf of the CWG
Jonathan & Lise, This looks good to me but I wonder whether we should say something about timing targets in the last paragraph. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:25 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR All, You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose: Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Please see below for such a draft. Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise -- Dear ICG, The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Jonathan & Lise For and on behalf of the CWG
Chuck, Thank-you. That's a good point. It's not something Lise & I have explicitly discussed. I suppose that, from a CWG perspective, we could start work on at any time but my sense was that we would pick this up after the ICG completed its work. I am not certain we need to specifically spell it out here. Do you (or others) have a view on this? More generally, the CWG's role in implementation (of our proposal) is something we could also usefully discuss at some point. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 26 August 2015 12:30 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR Jonathan & Lise, This looks good to me but I wonder whether we should say something about timing targets in the last paragraph. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:25 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR All, You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose: Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Please see below for such a draft. Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise -- Dear ICG, The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Jonathan & Lise For and on behalf of the CWG
I don't have strong feelings on this Jonathan. I just know that everyone is concerned about timing so I thought it might be good to state that we plan to do whatever is necessary to avoid delays. Chuck From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR Chuck, Thank-you. That's a good point. It's not something Lise & I have explicitly discussed. I suppose that, from a CWG perspective, we could start work on at any time but my sense was that we would pick this up after the ICG completed its work. I am not certain we need to specifically spell it out here. Do you (or others) have a view on this? More generally, the CWG's role in implementation (of our proposal) is something we could also usefully discuss at some point. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 26 August 2015 12:30 To: jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR Jonathan & Lise, This looks good to me but I wonder whether we should say something about timing targets in the last paragraph. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:25 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR All, You will recall that at the August 20th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose: Action: Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities. Please see below for such a draft. Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August. Thank-you, Jonathan & Lise -- Dear ICG, The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG's intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements. Thank-you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely, Jonathan & Lise For and on behalf of the CWG
good point. avri On 26-Aug-15 19:51, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I don’t have strong feelings on this Jonathan. I just know that everyone is concerned about timing so I thought it might be good to state that we plan to do whatever is necessary to avoid delays.
Chuck
*From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:01 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
Chuck,
Thank-you. That’s a good point. It’s not something Lise & I have explicitly discussed.
I suppose that, from a CWG perspective, we could start work on at any time but my sense was that we would pick this up after the ICG completed its work.
I am not certain we need to specifically spell it out here. Do you (or others) have a view on this?
More generally, the CWG’s role in implementation (of our proposal) is something we could also usefully discuss at some point.
Jonathan
*From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] *Sent:* 26 August 2015 12:30 *To:* jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
Jonathan & Lise,
This looks good to me but I wonder whether we should say something about timing targets in the last paragraph.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Robinson *Sent:* Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:25 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
All,
You will recall that at the August 20^th meeting of the CWG, the following action arose:
*Action:* Chairs draft position for submission to ICG and relevant communities.
Please see below for such a draft.
Please provide any comments with 24 hours if possible and in any case, no later than 18h00 UTC Thursday 27 August.
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
--
Dear ICG,
The final CWG proposal, as submitted to the ICG, contained reference to the IANA IPR, primarily within the draft Term Sheet in Annex S. However, given that the Term Sheet was in draft form and that the IPR language was in square brackets, it was subsequently clarified with you that the proposal was effectively silent on the IANA IPR. At the time of drafting the Final Proposal, it was the CWG’s intention not to ignore the issue of the IANA IPR, 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 IPR will be helpful. Accordingly, the CWG has discussed and reviewed its position on the IANA IPR, 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 trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan & Lise
For and on behalf of the CWG
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Aug 2015 08:25, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote
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" Regards in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. 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 the detailed requirements.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan & Lise
For and on behalf of the CWG
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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<http://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"
Milton / Seun, That’s a fair point. In preparing the statement, we used the exact wording from the CRISP proposal in order to be 100% clear that the two were consistent but I can see your concern. I think it would remain as consistent with the modified wording suggested by Seun unless others have concerns? Jonathan From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu] Sent: 26 August 2015 14:19 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR 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 <http://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"
Hi, Jonathan, the numbers community was actually referring to the IFO when they said "independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator" If we want to go by similar phrasing, then we can say "independent of the IANA *Names* Services Operator" which will still imply the IFO Regards On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
Milton / Seun,
That’s a fair point. In preparing the statement, we used the exact wording from the CRISP proposal in order to be 100% clear that the two were consistent but I can see your concern.
I think it would remain as consistent with the modified wording suggested by Seun unless others have concerns?
Jonathan
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu] *Sent:* 26 August 2015 14:19 *To:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson < jrobinson@afilias.info> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR
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"
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
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 <http://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
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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."
I think that rationale is important, i don't see why you think it should be removed. Saying we do not object simply implies agreeing with the rationale as well. So i prefer we write is out as it currently is.
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.
Again this should be straight forward, do you (we) think there are other rationales other than what is written above? is the goal not to allow access to the resource in the manner stated in the text above.
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).
I have explained in my previous mail why i think the numbering community wrote their text that way and its to refer to numbers community.
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.
Freelancing it is fine though it really may not add anything more so long as the "numbering" part of the text is changed to names
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:
Except for the rationale that has been removed, I don't see any issues with the revised version either way is fine by me. Nevertheless, if there is consensus to remove the rationale, i will have no problem with it. Cheers!
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 <http://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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator. We spent little if any time on the stated rationale. As such, it is inappropriate for this group to adopt this rationale. It's also important to note that we are expressing non-objection with the requirement. We do not need to express agreement with all or any part of the Numbering community's rationale, nor have we come to consensus to do so. This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well. If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary. As for "freelancing" -- that is hardly my suggestion. Perhaps you don't recognize it, but that is a pejorative characterization. I was agreeing with you, so I am baffled by now being accused of "freelancing." I can only assume it was unintentional. Greg On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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."
I think that rationale is important, i don't see why you think it should be removed. Saying we do not object simply implies agreeing with the rationale as well. So i prefer we write is out as it currently is.
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.
Again this should be straight forward, do you (we) think there are other rationales other than what is written above? is the goal not to allow access to the resource in the manner stated in the text above.
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).
I have explained in my previous mail why i think the numbering community wrote their text that way and its to refer to numbers community.
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.
Freelancing it is fine though it really may not add anything more so long as the "numbering" part of the text is changed to names
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:
Except for the rationale that has been removed, I don't see any issues with the revised version either way is fine by me. Nevertheless, if there is consensus to remove the rationale, i will have no problem with it.
Cheers!
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 <http://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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Aug 2015 17:18, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's
"non-objection" stance as well.
SO: Okay I agree, let's use the no-objection route especially as you think there is/will be a lot to discuss on rationale. Hopefully we won't have to engage legal on that as well.
If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary.
SO: Well my point is that the rationale does not have to be that complicated to agree on. Nevertheless, at the fear of prolonging this unnecessarily, I agree we move on without rationale if others are fine with it.
As for "freelancing" -- that is hardly my suggestion. Perhaps you don't recognize it, but that is a pejorative characterization. I was agreeing with you, so I am baffled by now being accused of "freelancing." I can only assume it was unintentional.
SO: Perhaps that did not get across well, I was actually also saying either freelancing or being specific to names (as it's the case with numbers) will achieve same purpose. Practically speaking, the direct "contractual IFO" for names would be PTI and the direct "contractual IFO" for numbers would be ICANN. Regards
Greg
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
wrote:
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."
I think that rationale is important, i don't see why you think it should be removed. Saying we do not object simply implies agreeing with the rationale as well. So i prefer we write is out as it currently is.
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.
Again this should be straight forward, do you (we) think there are other rationales other than what is written above? is the goal not to allow access to the resource in the manner stated in the text above.
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).
I have explained in my previous mail why i think the numbering community wrote their text that way and its to refer to numbers community.
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.
Freelancing it is fine though it really may not add anything more so long as the "numbering" part of the text is changed to names
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:
Except for the rationale that has been removed, I don't see any issues with the revised version either way is fine by me. Nevertheless, if there is consensus to remove the rationale, i will have no problem with it.
Cheers!
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] SO: Well my point is that the rationale does not have to be that complicated to agree on. Nevertheless, at the fear of prolonging this unnecessarily, I agree we move on without rationale if others are fine with it. MM: I am _not_ fine with it. The rationale needs to be in there, because that is what we discussed and what everyone but Greg agreed was the concern. If you want to rephrase the rationale a bit to incorporate separability concerns more directly rather than nondiscrimination, that would be fine. But to say or imply that we have no rationale for this, and that we are simply not objecting, would be a completely inaccurate representation of what happened in this CWG.
Hi, I think it is certain that you have strong rationale. But as far as being in the rough (nice to see IETF usage come into ICANN) it may be you that is in the rough. By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way the Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO, while Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role, going towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise. I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the IETF Trust becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the mark. People have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an existing trust might be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have, we are holding off on trying to design that new trust. If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say. avri On 26-Aug-15 13:41, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
*From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
SO: Well my point is that the rationale does not have to be that complicated to agree on. Nevertheless, at the fear of prolonging this unnecessarily, I agree we move on without rationale if others are fine with it.
MM: I am _/not/_ fine with it. The rationale needs to be in there, because that is what we discussed and what everyone but Greg agreed was the concern. If you want to rephrase the rationale a bit to incorporate separability concerns more directly rather than nondiscrimination, that would be fine. But to say or imply that we have no rationale for this, and that we are simply not objecting, would be a completely inaccurate representation of what happened in this CWG.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-----Original Message----- By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way the Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO, while Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role, going towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise.
Nothing wrong with that, but you are not addressing the point being discussed, which is what is the rationale, the reason, the justification, for not wanting the trademarks and domains to be in the hands of the incumbent IFO. A Trust is a proposed solution, not a "rationale"
I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the IETF Trust becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the mark.
I said no one offered a _better_ alternative. Creating a new Trust is something I thought we all recognized as possible, but not desirable, because of the time involved in creating and designing it, and the risks of creating something new when we cannot know much about how it will actually work.
have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an existing trust might be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have, we are holding off on trying to design that new trust.
That's a more accurate assessment of where we are. Still, I would not say we are "holding off;" I would say that if an existing trust can satisfy the requirements, perhaps with some modifications, all the comments I have seen indicate that CWG is strongly inclined to go with an existing Trust, namely IETF Trust. I haven't detected any appetite here for opening up a new process to start a new trust unless we absolutely have to. And if the IETF Trust can be adjusted to serve this purpose, we won't have to. The legal analysis was pretty negative about creating a new trust.
If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say.
Sorry, you are missing the point about what the rationale is for. A rationale is not the proposed solution, it is a statement of the problem we need a solution for. The rationale that Greg objected to was that the trademarks and domains should facilitate nondiscriminatory use; i.e., the rationale is about separability.
If the reason for not having the property with the IFO is separability, then that can be a rationale for Numbers and Protocols not wanting to let ICANN retain the property. It does not serve as a rationale for Names for whom the PTI is the IFO and for which there is a separation process defined. It therefore cannot be Names' rationale. As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs. avri On 26-Aug-15 22:47, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message----- By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way the Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO, while Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role, going towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise. Nothing wrong with that, but you are not addressing the point being discussed, which is what is the rationale, the reason, the justification, for not wanting the trademarks and domains to be in the hands of the incumbent IFO. A Trust is a proposed solution, not a "rationale"
I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the IETF Trust becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the mark. I said no one offered a _better_ alternative. Creating a new Trust is something I thought we all recognized as possible, but not desirable, because of the time involved in creating and designing it, and the risks of creating something new when we cannot know much about how it will actually work.
have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an existing trust might be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have, we are holding off on trying to design that new trust. That's a more accurate assessment of where we are. Still, I would not say we are "holding off;" I would say that if an existing trust can satisfy the requirements, perhaps with some modifications, all the comments I have seen indicate that CWG is strongly inclined to go with an existing Trust, namely IETF Trust. I haven't detected any appetite here for opening up a new process to start a new trust unless we absolutely have to. And if the IETF Trust can be adjusted to serve this purpose, we won't have to. The legal analysis was pretty negative about creating a new trust.
If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say. Sorry, you are missing the point about what the rationale is for. A rationale is not the proposed solution, it is a statement of the problem we need a solution for. The rationale that Greg objected to was that the trademarks and domains should facilitate nondiscriminatory use; i.e., the rationale is about separability.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs." Exactly. It is not what we "decided" through a specific thought process prior to the issue being locked into the CRISP proposal. Given that we believe it can be made to work, it is a pragmatic decision. Alan At 26/08/2015 11:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
If the reason for not having the property with the IFO is separability, then that can be a rationale for Numbers and Protocols not wanting to let ICANN retain the property.
It does not serve as a rationale for Names for whom the PTI is the IFO and for which there is a separation process defined. It therefore cannot be Names' rationale.
As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs.
avri
On 26-Aug-15 22:47, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message----- By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way the Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO, while Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role, going towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise. Nothing wrong with that, but you are not addressing the point being discussed, which is what is the rationale, the reason, the justification, for not wanting the trademarks and domains to be in the hands of the incumbent IFO. A Trust is a proposed solution, not a "rationale"
I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the IETF Trust becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the mark. I said no one offered a _better_ alternative. Creating a new Trust is something I thought we all recognized as possible, but not desirable, because of the time involved in creating and designing it, and the risks of creating something new when we cannot know much about how it will actually work.
have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an existing trust might be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have, we are holding off on trying to design that new trust. That's a more accurate assessment of where we are. Still, I would not say we are "holding off;" I would say that if an existing trust can satisfy the requirements, perhaps with some modifications, all the comments I have seen indicate that CWG is strongly inclined to go with an existing Trust, namely IETF Trust. I haven't detected any appetite here for opening up a new process to start a new trust unless we absolutely have to. And if the IETF Trust can be adjusted to serve this purpose, we won't have to. The legal analysis was pretty negative about creating a new trust.
If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say. Sorry, you are missing the point about what the rationale is for. A rationale is not the proposed solution, it is a statement of the problem we need a solution for. The rationale that Greg objected to was that the trademarks and domains should facilitate nondiscriminatory use; i.e., the rationale is about separability.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message----- It does not serve as a rationale for Names for whom the PTI is the IFO and for which there is a separation process defined. It therefore cannot be Names' rationale.
That's not quite correct, Avri. PTI is a controlled corporate subsidiary of ICANN. Therefore, for separability purposes, taking names IFO away from PTI is also taking it away from ICANN, as I am sure you know. So nondiscriminatory reassignment of the trademarks and domains _can_ be a rationale here.
As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs.
If that is _your_ rationale, it is fine. It works for me, and probably for 2 others. It is not the rationale that the rest of us have been citing.
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator. MM: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use. When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a change in IFO away from ICANN. This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well. MM: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN would cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they are not. If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary. MM: I think this is a filibuster.
I don't see the relationship you offer. The CRISP rationale refers to non-discriminatory use, whatever that means, not non-discriminatory transfer. In any event, we never discussed this statement, much less the relationship between the statement and separability. I think Jonathan was just trying to work with the CRISP verbiage when he drafted the statement, which accounts for the reference to the Numbering Services Operator and to this non-discriminatory use clause. In both cases, they do not reflect the thinking of our community and should be dropped, so we can move on. Insistance on including this unexplored clause would be a filibuster and a distortion of the basis for the CWG's non-objection to the minimum requirement. Greg Greg On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L < milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator.
MM: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use. When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a change in IFO away from ICANN.
This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well.
MM: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN would cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they are not.
If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary.
MM: I think this is a filibuster.
All, Confirmed, the intent here was to use the EXACT wording from the CRISP response with the primary motivation to ensure coherence between the respective positions, but an obvious benefit was also to avoid the need for substantial discussion of the nuances of the CWG position. It now seems clear that we may need a fix to the draft language which retains both consistency with the CRISP proposal and the integrity of the CWG position to date. Lise and I can work on that based on the feedback received. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 27 August 2015 15:34 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> Cc: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR I don't see the relationship you offer. The CRISP rationale refers to non-discriminatory use, whatever that means, not non-discriminatory transfer. In any event, we never discussed this statement, much less the relationship between the statement and separability. I think Jonathan was just trying to work with the CRISP verbiage when he drafted the statement, which accounts for the reference to the Numbering Services Operator and to this non-discriminatory use clause. In both cases, they do not reflect the thinking of our community and should be dropped, so we can move on. Insistance on including this unexplored clause would be a filibuster and a distortion of the basis for the CWG's non-objection to the minimum requirement. Greg Greg On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu <mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> > wrote: From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator. MM: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use. When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a change in IFO away from ICANN. This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well. MM: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN would cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they are not. If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary. MM: I think this is a filibuster.
All, Thank you for your feedback. I agree with Jonathan, we tried to use the wording from CRISP response. And I would like to echo that we will work with the feedback received and ensure consistency with CRISP proposal and the CWG position. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 27. august 2015 16:58 Til: 'Greg Shatan'; 'Mueller, Milton L' Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR All, Confirmed, the intent here was to use the EXACT wording from the CRISP response with the primary motivation to ensure coherence between the respective positions, but an obvious benefit was also to avoid the need for substantial discussion of the nuances of the CWG position. It now seems clear that we may need a fix to the draft language which retains both consistency with the CRISP proposal and the integrity of the CWG position to date. Lise and I can work on that based on the feedback received. Thanks, Jonathan From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 27 August 2015 15:34 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> Cc: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR I don't see the relationship you offer. The CRISP rationale refers to non-discriminatory use, whatever that means, not non-discriminatory transfer. In any event, we never discussed this statement, much less the relationship between the statement and separability. I think Jonathan was just trying to work with the CRISP verbiage when he drafted the statement, which accounts for the reference to the Numbering Services Operator and to this non-discriminatory use clause. In both cases, they do not reflect the thinking of our community and should be dropped, so we can move on. Insistance on including this unexplored clause would be a filibuster and a distortion of the basis for the CWG's non-objection to the minimum requirement. Greg Greg On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator. MM: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use. When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a change in IFO away from ICANN. This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well. MM: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN would cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they are not. If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary. MM: I think this is a filibuster.
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. MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is prima facie inaccurate as anyone who has followed this list knows. We discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the names community, which is a derivative of this issue. I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale, with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on the IETF Trust as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust. In that respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to accommodate your minority position. I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs. trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.
Milton, Of course, I'm serious. I don't believe we discussed this statement much if at all -- "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community." There was a fair amount of discussion of separability concerns (though not any decision to adopt that as a rationale), i.e., fears that ICANN would not transfer or allow use of the trademarks and domain names to a new IFO chosen by an operational community. However, I don't read the quoted clause to refers to issues of separation and separability -- it refers to how the assets will be used. And I don't think we ever discussed the meaning or import of this clause, much less adopted it as a rationale. For instance, we've never discussed what "use in a non-discriminatory manner" means. I don't think we came to any consensus on this list on a rationale, only on support for the "minimum requirement" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to a party other than the IFO. I think that Avri and Alan reflect more accurately the reason for our non-objection -- it was a pragmatic decision, essentially "going along to get along" (and to move along). There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject. Greg On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Mueller, Milton L < milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
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.
MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is prima facie inaccurate as anyone who has followed this list knows. We discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the names community, which is a derivative of this issue.
I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale, with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on the IETF Trust as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust. In that respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to accommodate your minority position.
I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs. trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.
Hi, On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:27:03AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject.
Greg's remark there does seem to raise the question of what difference it makes what the rationale is. I think I don't understand what the controversy is: why should we care why the CWG came to its conclusion, given that the conclusion appears to work out? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:27:03AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject.
Greg's remark there does seem to raise the question of what difference it makes what the rationale is. I think I don't understand what the controversy is: why should we care why the CWG came to its conclusion, given that the conclusion appears to work out?
+1 and this is why i have decided to agree as well; So long as adding/removing the rationale does not mean CWG is no longer agreeing with the proposal for a transfer of the IANA TM and domain from the current IFO then i am fine. Cheers!
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lise Fuhr -
Mueller, Milton L -
Seun Ojedeji