[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: VS: CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Paul Rendek]

Hey Izumi,

This is very fine news indeed.

thanks,
Paul


On 9/2/15 9:27 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> FYI. CWG has confirmed that they have consistent position as the ICG proposal (i.e., the number community proposal).
>
>
> Izumi
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: VS: CWG Position on IANA IPR
> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:29:20 +0200
> From: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
> To: 'Izumi Okutani' <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, 'Nurani Nimpuno' <nurani at netnod.se>
> CC: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>
> Dear Izumi, Nurani & CRISP Colleagues,
>
>  
>
> Please see below for our recent correspondence submitted to the ICG on the
> subject of the IANA IPR.
>
>  
>
> We trust that this will be helpful to you and to all of us as we navigate
> the path to a successful and mutually agreeable transition.
>
>  
>
> Thank-you for your help in working with us to date and we look forward to
> continuing to so when appropriate in future.
>
>  
>
> Best wishes,
>
>  
>
> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
>
> IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs
>
>  
>
> Fra: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk] 
> Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16
> Til: alissa at cooperw.in
> Cc: Patrik Fältström (paf at netnod.se); Mohamed El Bashir (mbashir at mbash.net)
> Emne: CWG Position on IANA IPR
>
>  
>
> Dear Alissa and ICG Colleagues,
>
>  
>
> As you know, the final CWG IANA Stewardship proposal submitted in response
> to your ICG RFP, 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 CWG 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 a
> subsequent associated contract.
>
>  
>
> Following from the 31 July 2015 publication for public comment of the ICG
> proposal and some preliminary legal work commissioned by the CWG, 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 the
> three responses to the ICG RFP which form the foundation of that proposal. 
>
>  
>
> Accordingly, the CWG hereby formally confirms that its position is
> consistent with that of the other two respondents to the ICG RFP in that it
> has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org,
> .com and .net) 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 the detailed requirements
> and that this work will take place within the currently contemplated
> timelines.
>
>  
>
> Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
>
>  
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
>
> IANA CWG Stewardship Co-chairs
>
> For and on behalf of the CWG
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp