FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
All, Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) Jonathan ----- Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain. We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team ----- On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit.
In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs:
1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input.
Best wishes,
Jonathan & Lise
Hi, I think this is a very good way to proceed and am grateful that the process has begun. It is obvious that there are very different views on how the IPR can be dealt with. I will be happy to see it dealt with in a way that neither deprecates those who hold different views nor pathologizes those who disagree with a favorite position. I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group. Good luck. avri On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team)
Jonathan
----- Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members,
The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain.
We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback.
Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team -----
On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit.
In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs:
1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input.
Best wishes,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Avri, On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group.
If its indeed now "chairs' group" then i will add my +1. The understanding from the last CWG call was that a "small group" of selected person across the operational communities will be formed to discuss the TM(the group as i understand it may or may not contain the chairs). Overall, without a direction from the CWG i doubt this meeting would help the CWG achieve a consensus view on the TM options. I would however be glad to see this cross- operational community collaboration focus on how to refine the "texts/wordings" that ensure IETF Trust operates the TM in a manner acceptable by the operational communities.
Good luck.
+1 Regards
avri
On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team)
Jonathan
----- Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members,
The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain.
We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback.
Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team -----
On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit.
In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs:
1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input.
Best wishes,
Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 !
Hi, By chairs' group. i meant one that they were responsible for and were putting together as they thought best. I did not mean it would only contain chairs. As for consensus, I hear more and more people saying things like, "while I would prefer ICANN hold on to the IPR and domain names as part of its stewardship role, as long as everything is worked out, I am willing to live with a trust solution since that is what Numbers wants and is what was put in the ICG plan as a default" I think if the chairs group works it out and can answer the questions being asked to the satisfaction of the group, we will find consensus. avri On 11-Aug-15 15:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group.
If its indeed now "chairs' group" then i will add my +1. The understanding from the last CWG call was that a "small group" of selected person across the operational communities will be formed to discuss the TM(the group as i understand it may or may not contain the chairs).
Overall, without a direction from the CWG i doubt this meeting would help the CWG achieve a consensus view on the TM options. I would however be glad to see this cross- operational community collaboration focus on how to refine the "texts/wordings" that ensure IETF Trust operates the TM in a manner acceptable by the operational communities.
Good luck.
+1
Regards
avri
On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > All, > > Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) > > Jonathan > > ----- > Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, > > > The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. > Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org <http://iana.org> domain. > > We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. > We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. > > Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team > ----- > > > On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> All, >> >> Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. >> In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. >> Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit. >> >> In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs: >> >> 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. >> 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. >> 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. >> This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. >> My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. >> >> We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. >> Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan & Lise >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I agree with Avri regarding the composition of the 'chair's group'. I think having a few IPR experts in the small group is important. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:58 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination Hi, By chairs' group. i meant one that they were responsible for and were putting together as they thought best. I did not mean it would only contain chairs. As for consensus, I hear more and more people saying things like, "while I would prefer ICANN hold on to the IPR and domain names as part of its stewardship role, as long as everything is worked out, I am willing to live with a trust solution since that is what Numbers wants and is what was put in the ICG plan as a default" I think if the chairs group works it out and can answer the questions being asked to the satisfaction of the group, we will find consensus. avri On 11-Aug-15 15:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group.
If its indeed now "chairs' group" then i will add my +1. The understanding from the last CWG call was that a "small group" of selected person across the operational communities will be formed to discuss the TM(the group as i understand it may or may not contain the chairs).
Overall, without a direction from the CWG i doubt this meeting would help the CWG achieve a consensus view on the TM options. I would however be glad to see this cross- operational community collaboration focus on how to refine the "texts/wordings" that ensure IETF Trust operates the TM in a manner acceptable by the operational communities.
Good luck.
+1
Regards
avri
On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > All, > > Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) > > Jonathan > > ----- > Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, > > > The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. > Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org <http://iana.org> domain. > > We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. > We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. > > Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team > ----- > > > On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> All, >> >> Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. >> In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. >> Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit. >> >> In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs: >> >> 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. >> 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. >> 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. >> This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. >> My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. >> >> We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. >> Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan & Lise >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
--- 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
Jonathan and Lise, I would like to volunteer to be part of this group. Greg On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I agree with Avri regarding the composition of the 'chair's group'. I think having a few IPR experts in the small group is important.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:58 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
Hi,
By chairs' group. i meant one that they were responsible for and were putting together as they thought best. I did not mean it would only contain chairs.
As for consensus, I hear more and more people saying things like, "while I would prefer ICANN hold on to the IPR and domain names as part of its stewardship role, as long as everything is worked out, I am willing to live with a trust solution since that is what Numbers wants and is what was put in the ICG plan as a default"
I think if the chairs group works it out and can answer the questions being asked to the satisfaction of the group, we will find consensus.
avri
On 11-Aug-15 15:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group.
If its indeed now "chairs' group" then i will add my +1. The understanding from the last CWG call was that a "small group" of selected person across the operational communities will be formed to discuss the TM(the group as i understand it may or may not contain the chairs).
Overall, without a direction from the CWG i doubt this meeting would help the CWG achieve a consensus view on the TM options. I would however be glad to see this cross- operational community collaboration focus on how to refine the "texts/wordings" that ensure IETF Trust operates the TM in a manner acceptable by the operational communities.
Good luck.
+1
Regards
avri
On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > All, > > Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) > > Jonathan > > ----- > Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, > > > The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. > Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org <http://iana.org> domain. > > We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. > We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. > > Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team > ----- > > > On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> All, >> >> Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. >> In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. >> Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit. >> >> In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs: >> >> 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. >> 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. >> 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. >> This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. >> My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. >> >> We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. >> Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan & Lise >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
--- 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
As far as I'm concerned, I'm one of Avri's "more and more people" subject to us being able to find a clear framework for accountability on the holder of the IPR and domain names to the operational communities. That really is about granting rights to the use of the resources for the purpose of the IANA functions operation by whomsoever is appointed to provide the IANA functions operator(s) services. -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 12 August 2015 13:34 To: avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination I agree with Avri regarding the composition of the 'chair's group'. I think having a few IPR experts in the small group is important. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:58 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination Hi, By chairs' group. i meant one that they were responsible for and were putting together as they thought best. I did not mean it would only contain chairs. As for consensus, I hear more and more people saying things like, "while I would prefer ICANN hold on to the IPR and domain names as part of its stewardship role, as long as everything is worked out, I am willing to live with a trust solution since that is what Numbers wants and is what was put in the ICG plan as a default" I think if the chairs group works it out and can answer the questions being asked to the satisfaction of the group, we will find consensus. avri On 11-Aug-15 15:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Avri,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
I look forward to updates on the discussions that will be held in the chairs' group.
If its indeed now "chairs' group" then i will add my +1. The understanding from the last CWG call was that a "small group" of selected person across the operational communities will be formed to discuss the TM(the group as i understand it may or may not contain the chairs).
Overall, without a direction from the CWG i doubt this meeting would help the CWG achieve a consensus view on the TM options. I would however be glad to see this cross- operational community collaboration focus on how to refine the "texts/wordings" that ensure IETF Trust operates the TM in a manner acceptable by the operational communities.
Good luck.
+1
Regards
avri
On 11-Aug-15 04:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > All, > > Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) > > Jonathan > > ----- > Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, > > > The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. > Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org <http://iana.org> domain. > > We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. > We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. > > Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team > ----- > > > On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote: >> All, >> >> Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. >> In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. >> Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit. >> >> In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs: >> >> 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. >> 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. >> 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. >> This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. >> My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. >> >> We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. >> Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan & Lise >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto: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:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
--- 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 _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-----Original Message-----
3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities.
Sorry, Jonathan, I am not very comfortable with this part of your proposal. There is always a risk that these small, selected groups can usurp the WG decision making process and create mistrust about the process being gamed. I think the open CWG list is not that far from reaching an acceptable method of moving forward on this and don't see which this discussion can't take place in the open.
My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
This issue is important enough to many people that some will be unable to comment positively on the ICG proposal unless it is resolved properly.
Milton, Noted and I'll talk with Lise and interact further with the CWG on this. Lise & I did talk informally with the chairs of IANAPLAN, CRISP & the ICG late yesterday my time in order to look at how we might most effectively organise any work around this issue. I'll aim (in consultation with Lise) to put an update to the CWG within the next 24 hours. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu] Sent: 12 August 2015 13:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
-----Original Message-----
3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities.
Sorry, Jonathan, I am not very comfortable with this part of your proposal. There is always a risk that these small, selected groups can usurp the WG decision making process and create mistrust about the process being gamed. I think the open CWG list is not that far from reaching an acceptable method of moving forward on this and don't see which this discussion can't take place in the open.
My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
This issue is important enough to many people that some will be unable to comment positively on the ICG proposal unless it is resolved properly.
hi, Thanks, I think the frequent updates are most important. avri On 12-Aug-15 15:53, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
Milton,
Noted and I'll talk with Lise and interact further with the CWG on this.
Lise & I did talk informally with the chairs of IANAPLAN, CRISP & the ICG late yesterday my time in order to look at how we might most effectively organise any work around this issue.
I'll aim (in consultation with Lise) to put an update to the CWG within the next 24 hours.
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu] Sent: 12 August 2015 13:59 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
-----Original Message-----
3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. Sorry, Jonathan, I am not very comfortable with this part of your proposal. There is always a risk that these small, selected groups can usurp the WG decision making process and create mistrust about the process being gamed. I think the open CWG list is not that far from reaching an acceptable method of moving forward on this and don't see which this discussion can't take place in the open.
My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. This issue is important enough to many people that some will be unable to comment positively on the ICG proposal unless it is resolved properly.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Martin Boyle -
Mueller, Milton L -
Seun Ojedeji