[Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Notes CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal call

[Paul Wilson]

Dear all,

In case you have not seen these notes of the CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN call - 
posted by Izumi and Nurani (CRISP team chairs) to the NRO IANAXFER list 
yesterday.

Paul.
===


Forwarded message:

> From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se>
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Notes CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal call
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:44:39 +0200
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Following a request from the ICG to the CWG-Stewardship group (the 
> names community) concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name, 
> the CWG-Stewardship submitted the following response:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html
>
> As part of their response, the chairs of the CWG-Stewardship asked for 
> an informal coordination call with the chairs of the other two 
> operational communities (protocol and numbers) on Tuesday, 7 July.
>
> Below you will find the notes of that call.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Izumi Okutani, chair CRISP Team
> Nurani Nimpuno, vice chair CRISP Team
>
>
>> Proposed Agenda for CWG-CRISP-IANAPLAN informal call
>> 1. Updates:
>> a. CWG-Stewardship response to ICG: 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html
>> b. ICANN Board's comment to ICG: 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html
>> c. IANAPLAN?
>> d. CRISP?
>> 2. Discussion
>> 3. Way Forward
>> a. Advice and input from Sidley?
>> 4. Next Meeting?
>>
>> Present for the meeting:
>> CRISP -- Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno
>> IANAPLAN -- Marc Blanchet and Leslie Daigle
>> CWG-Stewardship -- Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> 1. Updates:
>>
>> 	• CWG-Stewardship statement is available at 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-July/003941.html.
>> 	• ICANN Board note is available at 
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html 
>> (and below):
>>
>> "ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> and the IANA 
>> trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's 
>> performance of the IANA functions. The board recognizes that the 
>> community is considering different models for the maintenance of the 
>> iana.org <http://iana.org/> domain name and the related trademarks.
>>
>> The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of 
>> the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate 
>> rights to use the  intellectual property associated with the IANA 
>> functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an 
>> entity the operational communities unanimously designate.
>>
>> It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of 
>> the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability 
>> to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the 
>> operational communities.”
>>
>> 	• IANAPLAN: no update on this topic since December (approx). There 
>> is a session scheduled at IETF 93 in Prague on 23 July. There is no 
>> agenda for the meeting currently (possible that the meeting will be 
>> canceled).
>>
>> 	• CRISP: There have been no further discussions on the IPR issue 
>> in the Number community. We are moving forward to prepare for 
>> implementation as much as we can. The draft SLA has gone through a 
>> feedback round and a new version will be out soon. The deadline 
>> closed yesterday for the draft Internet Number Community Review 
>> Committee Charter. The document is available at 
>> https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter. CRISP chairs represent 
>> the policy development for this process but implementation-related 
>> aspects should involve the RIRs more specifically.
>>
>> 2/3. Discussion and Way Forward
>>
>> How does CWG-Stewardship intend to close the issue? What is the 
>> timeline?
>> CWG-Stewardship have the CWG, the lawyers, the update from the ICANN 
>> Board, and the response to the ICG. Is the ICANN response, combined 
>> with the ICG response sufficient for the CWG, the lawyers, and the 
>> other communities? The goal, in the minds of the Chairs, is to change 
>> as little as possible. Chairs intend to talk to the CWG-Stewardship 
>> and the lawyers on Thursday this week. As part of this discussion, 
>> Chairs would like to report back on how the two other communities 
>> feel about the issue.
>>
>> How do other communities feel with regard to the two notes? What is 
>> your sense of the urgency?
>> CRISP Chairs felt encouragement with note from ICANN Board. But the 
>> numbers community is not currently holding an active discussion on 
>> this topic [*as no request from the ICG which require consideration], 
>> so the two groups are at a different place.
>>
>> What is the 'feel of the room' for the CWG-Stewardship?
>> CWG-Stewardship has not really discussed both notes yet, but plans to 
>> do so on Thursday.
>>
>> Is there anything that the communities can share to help move the 
>> conversation along in the CWG-Stewardship?
>> We have not yet formally decided whether or not we will instruct the 
>> lawyers to look into this, but in the case that we do, any legal 
>> advice and prior research will be beneficial to them.
>>
>>
>> 4. Next Meeting
>>
>> Will need another in the next few weeks to continue to update and 
>> provide clarity. Grace to coordinate schedules. Possible meeting 
>> before IETF meeting and another one after.
>> The IETF is primarily concerned with ensuring it can continue to use 
>> the marks/domain — as it has done from their inception — both in 
>> terms of the current transition discussion and any changes going 
>> forward. The IANAPLAN WG deliberately chose not to specify how that 
>> should be achieved, so there is flexibility. Clearly, ongoing 
>> coordination will be necessary to ensure we don’t get late 
>> surprises.
>
>
> * Clarification added by Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer