I’d support that. --MM From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brenden Kuerbis Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 1:22 PM To: Mueller, Milton L Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] Important NCSG draft comment on ICG IANA stewardship proposal On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Each OC has its own procedures for ensuring continuity and stability in their proposals. E.g., the IETF requires ICANN to commit to those parts of the legacy IANA contract that require cooperation with the new operator and continuity; the RIR proposal has similar arrangements. The biggest transition compatibility problem that the different OCs and ICG identified was the trademarks and domains. If these are moved to an independent (non-IFO) trust, that problem should be resolved. On the issue of IANA-related IP, I've suggested in the document Comments that we adopt an actual position. Personally, I very much agree with the comments recently submitted by ISOC. NCSG could simply NCSG endorse it: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-comments-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal<https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-comments-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNHgjGesKBS6evLYLEmdiV-Zw_3lBQ> "Moreover, the issue regarding the proper home of the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names (iana.org<https://www.google.com/url?q=http://iana.org&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNEE7vFteBrnfetD9NTKawH-r6I_ag>; iana.net<https://www.google.com/url?q=http://iana.net&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNEUoJIc1wDiC2DDxAmBOi5trKwJSw>; and, iana.com<https://www.google.com/url?q=http://iana.com&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNFCGTkO-fFUPDg88XACHZK97DNIrg>) remains unsettled. The Internet Society agrees that the IANA-related intellectual property rights should be held by an independent entity in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory, stable and predictable manner for the benefit of all communities, users and the Internet. The IETF [6] and the CRISP [7] team have both indicated that they consider the IETF Trust to be an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain. Further, the IETF Trust has said that it would be willing to hold intellectual property rights related to the IANA function [8]. Given the experience of the IETF Trust in holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet standards process and its administration, we believe that the IETF Trust has the competency and legitimacy to serve as this independent entity. The licensing policy considerations that would accompany a transfer of the IPR for the operations of IANA are substantive in nature; it will be important to carry out a process to identify the concerns of the parties and for achieving community consensus on these matters." -- Brenden What we want to avoid is any statement or implication that any one OC has to get the approval of the other OCs to change their IANA functions operator. That won’t fly politically, as we have learned several times. --MM From: Matthew Shears [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 5:02 AM To: Mueller, Milton L; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] Important NCSG draft comment on ICG IANA stewardship proposal Hi Milton, thanks for the comments, etc. I don't have any misconception on this matter. I am just raising a concern I see when it comes to moving to another IFO and how such a change would occur and whether there is a need to coordinate such a change to mitigate any issues related to continuity and stability - that's all. If we believe that this is not the case nor necessary then fine we can delete. Others should review/edit the comments and see if they can be supported as an NCSG input - we don't much time - THANKS! Matthew On 9/3/2015 9:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I went over it. Made some additions, fleshed out a few things. But we do have a serious disagreement. Whoever wrote the initial draft is laboring under the misconception that any change in IANA function operators must be coordinated across all three operational communities. This is just not true. The plan (and at least 2 of the 3 OCs involved) assumes that each OC has the ability to select a new IANA functions operator independently for its own part of the functions. None of the numbers and protocols people have expressed any concern about the compatibility implications of doing that. It seems to be only names people who are worried about that. I would object to all of that language but before deleting it wanted to flag this issue on the list for discussion. -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 10:11 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] Important NCSG draft comment on ICG IANA stewardship proposal Thanks Rafik - this is very "drafty" so please consider it a strawman. Matthew On 9/3/2015 2:47 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi everyone, Thanks to Matt, we got a NCSG draft comment for the ICG proposal and we should submit this asap (the deadline for submission is 8th Sept). the document is here https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wO_tu- liqEqzlMSm_NnGD4_BME7f7Fhg_ Z7d1lwYBc/edit please review it and share your comments. the document is in suggestion mode to make the review and input more easier. For reminder, Milton is our representative in the ICG. Best Regards, Rafik -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987> -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987<tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987>