[Ianaplan] Fwd: CWG Position on IANA IPR

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Tue, 01 September 2015 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122061B29E4 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5MbutKWmKnev for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4811B2F2C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 12:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.98] (kuwa.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.98]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A54E7403A4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:04:45 -0400
Message-ID: <806324CF-3BEE-48E1-96BC-CF4F3B7903E2@viagenie.ca>
References: <011c01d0e4dc$76810790$638316b0$@difo.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/WLyKb93b2l8aHK2VkHYrjGS9i6Y>
Subject: [Ianaplan] Fwd: CWG Position on IANA IPR
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 19:04:58 -0000

FYI. Marc.

Forwarded message:

> From: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>;
> To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;, Marc Blanchet 
> <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>;
> Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;, Jonathan Robinson 
> <jrobinson@afilias.info>;
> 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:lise.fuhr@difo.dk]
> Sendt: 1. september 2015 19:16
> Til: alissa@cooperw.in
> Cc: Patrik Fältström (paf@netnod.se); Mohamed El Bashir 
> (mbashir@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
>