[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Aug 10 15:16:06 CEST 2015
Follow up to my post:https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-August/002135.html
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:13:35 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
Jonathan and Lise,
Would you mind to help us share this message with the CWG?
I hope this helps give clarify about our status to the CWG members.
Izumi & Nurani
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:
> 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
More information about the CRISP