[Ianaplan] Fwd: CWG Position on IANA IPR

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

FYI. Marc.

Forwarded message:

> From: Lise Fuhr <[e-mail]>
> To: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>, Marc Blanchet 
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>, Jonathan Robinson 
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: VS: CWG Position on IANA IPR
> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:34:31 +0200
>
> Dear Leslie, Mark & IANAPLAN 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:[e-mail]]
> Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16
> Til: [e-mail]
> Cc: Patrik Fältström ([e-mail]); Mohamed El Bashir 
> ([e-mail])
> 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
>