Dear All Firstly, let me say in the past with NTIA's stewardship (including the IANA contract rebid) the ICANN/IANA have done an excellent job at serving the naming community. However, I would like clarification on the CWG's desired mechanics of the independence of the IANA Functions Operator from or being "impacted" by ICANN Corporate interests. My understanding was that the PTI was "separate" from ICANN (yet internal to ICANN). My understanding was that there was a pre-determined escalation path to resolve disputes between IANA operator and its customers My understanding was that in the event of a failure by ICANN/PTI to meet the needs of the Registry naming community - the IANA functions would be stripped out.... (in a controlled pre-determined manner). Can I be reassured that my assumptions are correct ??? Thanks Best Paul

Paul

-----Original Message-----

My understanding was that the PTI was "separate" from ICANN (yet internal to ICANN).

It is not internal, it is a separate subsidiary. While majority controlled by ICANN, it is a separate entity.

My understanding was that there was a pre-determined escalation path to resolve disputes between IANA operator and its customers My understanding was that in the event of a failure by ICANN/PTI to meet the needs of the Registry naming community - the IANA functions would be stripped out.... (in a controlled pre-determined manner).

Can I be reassured that my assumptions are correct ???

Your assumptions about our objectives are correct. Seun's reminder that this applies only to the naming functions (numbers and protocols would be "stripped out" by their own respective communities) is correct. However, the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that the names community can actually require ICANN to cough up IANA are not settled yet. That is the task of the CCWG, and we are awaiting its results. There will be a public comment period on its new plan, so please review it carefully and let us know whether you, from your unique perspective as a ccTLD operator, believe that the procedures and enforcement mechanisms are good enough. --MM

Thanks

Best

Paul

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

Hello, As Nicholas above I am also following the developments on IANA transition for some time. I would like to volunteer for this group having background in IP Law in general and trademark protection in particular. All the best, Plamena *Dr. Plamena Popova, * *Assistant Professor, UniBIT* *Bulgaria * *Mobile : + 359 (0) 887 087 807 <%2B%20359%20%280%29%20887%20087%20807>* *Linkedin: *Plamena Popova <http://bg.linkedin.com/pub/plamena-popova/34/79a/b36> 2015-10-23 0:49 GMT+03:00 Nicholas Foss Barbantonis <nfb@email.arizona.edu>:

Hi,

I have passively been following the development of the IANA transition for a while and I would love to participate in discussing the IPR issue.

I have a background in IP research and practice. I am currently doing my law research doctorate on IP enforcement in the DNS. An overview of my qualifications is available here https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickfb

Best,

Nicholas F. Barbantonis

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:

...

All,

We now need to get to work on dealing with the IANA IPR. As you know, there are various reference documents as follows:

1. ICG Proposal

https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-propo...

...

2. The recent draft specification from the numbers community http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004441.html

3. The framework from the protocols community http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004449.html

4. The ICANN Board Statement https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en

5. The CWG Statement on the IPR issue https://community.icann.org/x/LohYAw

It seems to the CWG Stewardship chairs that we need a group with relevant expertise to look into and propose the principles and requirements for a post-transition home for the IANA IPR.

Relevant expertise may include; trademark law and practice, trust law and practice and detailed understanding of background to the formation, development and management of the IETF Trust.

Given that the other operational communities are ahead of us on this and very interested to communicate and collaborate as necessary, there is

some

...

urgency to this work. Ideally a draft should be ready for the meeting on 5th November.

Accordingly, please could we hear from interested participants with relevant expertise as soon as possible. Please express your interest on list.

Thank you,

Lise & Jonathan

CWG Co-Chairs

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

-- Sincerely,

Nicholas Foss Barbantonis S.J.D. Candidate 2016 James E. Rogers College of Law University of Arizona _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Jonathan & Lise, I am happy to volunteer for this task. I view this as a neutral facilitator/*rapporteur* role and would strive to be effective in that capacity. We have the benefit of excellent legal counsel if a question of law or legal best practice arises; while I would hope that we would need to turn to them only rarely, doing so would be preferable to trying to hash out "the law" in this DT. What's important is to work in an open, collegial and reasonably efficient manner to establish "the principles and requirements for a post-transition home for the IANA IPR." I will caution that the original goal of having a draft ready for the meeting on the 5th of November (which is in less than 18 hours) is a tad ambitious. Nonetheless, I'm committed to working as quickly as possible under the circumstances, consistent with good BUMP (bottom-up multistakeholder processes). Greg On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

All,

Many thanks to those who have come forward and volunteered for this group.

It would be good to have a team lead / rapporteur in order to co-ordinate and organise the work of the group.

Is anyone of the volunteers willing to step up to do so?

Thank-you.

Jonathan & Lise

*From:* Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] *Sent:* 22 October 2015 15:11 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] Call for volunteers - IPR issue

All,

We now need to get to work on dealing with the IANA IPR. As you know, there are various reference documents as follows:

1. ICG Proposal https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-propo...

2. The recent draft specification from the numbers community http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004441.html

3. The framework from the protocols community http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-October/004449.html

4. The ICANN Board Statement https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en

5. The CWG Statement on the IPR issue https://community.icann.org/x/LohYAw

It seems to the CWG Stewardship chairs that we need a group with relevant expertise to look into and propose the principles and requirements for a post-transition home for the IANA IPR.

Relevant expertise may include; trademark law and practice, trust law and practice and detailed understanding of background to the formation, development and management of the IETF Trust.

Given that the other operational communities are ahead of us on this and very interested to communicate and collaborate as necessary, there is some urgency to this work. Ideally a draft should be ready for the meeting on 5 th November.

Accordingly, please could we hear from interested participants with relevant expertise as soon as possible. Please express your interest on list.

Thank you,

Lise & Jonathan

CWG Co-Chairs

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