[Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR

[Jari Arkko]

Ok - thanks.

Jari

On 21 Sep 2015, at 03:12, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:

> Thanks Jari ..
> Just a minor edit to the very last sentence to read:
> " These details will become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."
> Instead of
> " These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation."
> 
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 2:06 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] proposed text change with regards to IPR
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> I have an updated version of the proposal text re: IPR now in DropBox, file IANA-transition-proposal-IPR-changes-v2.doc and also in text form below.
> 
> --
> 
> The ICG identified earlier a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA Function Operator. The entity that is associated with the trademarks and domains holds them on behalf of the three operational communities and the current operators.
> 
> Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to the arrangement.
> 
> The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG. In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator. These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN board statement on the same topic.
> 
> As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified, an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met. Some of the questions that the ICG received during the public comment period of the proposal relate to the implementation details. These details become clear as the communities proceed to plan the implementation.
> 
> --
> 
> Comments again appreciated.
> 
> Jari
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150923/d57fd6ea/attachment.asc>