<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] The transition is ON!! Texas court rejected request for temporary restraining order
- To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] The transition is ON!! Texas court rejected request for temporary restraining order
- From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:20:34 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=neustar.biz; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=neustar.biz; bh=Y3yQxwByADBofSFWil6i2wd5gAfL0fqJ2ed8WU7P4hY=; b=dRVmFC5g3yY+GmEXrxyd6yNilBVC5bGA8287jlkvD+ty301R2PfwQE/4jnctzRK2iWBp Qq8/KwAG9BzbPvp+r/ZzA6jnA5czH+yF7YzYpwvOQ4rGWq1cBXAAxBvmet3G7gpaJxLi PYsS6tykLUQ3MvGsYY40VwPV3SCzoWosZZiFOUsWtpvk3+Hg3/+TaHgXkdIkdOghRqJm vpLFUmkdb/+QZ8M1UwbqM9cahaaipkxstUmYnCtmYHsC4Hk+yZCRqhC0ClqoFlob8a9p AI8b6rJ224tDPGF0vaBNU/JAlerRSDdrVeAfo29uyBmyTSfjW8I0j5KAhJI1Xb5RwWMR Dw==
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHSG2jd2ykFb9s9uUCTJw8Xf+jG9Q==
- Thread-topic: The transition is ON!! Texas court rejected request for temporary restraining order
- User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
From: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, September 30, 2016 at 5:49 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of
the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual
Property Right
Thanks to everyone who weighed in. Given that there are no objections and
several expressions of support, I will ask that the GNSO be added to the other
SO and AC organizations on the letter instructing ICANN to execute the IANA IPR
agreements.
Thanks again for your assistance on this short-schedule task, and have a great
weekend.
J.
From: Keith Drazek <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 20:42
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of
the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual
Property Right
No objection from the RySG. Full support.
Keith
On Sep 30, 2016, at 2:12 AM, James M. Bladel
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues –
As discussed during our call today, please respond by COB tomorrow (and
preferably sooner) if you have any objections to adding the GNSO to the list of
SO/ACs instructing ICANN to execute these agreements.
If there are no objections received, we will give Staff the green light to
proceed.
Thank you,
J.
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:10
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: FW: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the
CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property
Right
Dear Councilors–
Please see the note below, in which the leadership of CWG-Stewardship is asking
all chartering organizations (incl. the GNSO) for their approval to being
included as signatories on a letter, instructing ICANN to execute the three
IANA IPR agreements referenced & attached. They are asking for a response by
30 SEP (tomorrow).
While acknowledging the last-minute nature of this request, this should be a
non-controversial issue and I’d like to include a discussion of it under AOB
for today’s call.
Thanks—
J.
From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:trang.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:37 Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship
Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship Chartering Organizations Regarding
IANA Intellectual Property Right
Dear Chairs,
Please see below a note from the Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of
the CWG-Stewardship.
--
Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs,
As part of the transition implementation work, representatives from the names
community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF
Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of
the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships
amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer.
These agreements are:
- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to
the IETF Trust.
- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for the names, numbers, and protocol
parameters IANA services.): These agreements allows for the IANA functions
operator to use the IPR.
- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement explains the rights and
obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR.
After a public comment period last month, the agreements have been finalized
and are ready to be executed.
One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as part of the work was to
identify who would be the signatory of the Community Agreement on behalf of the
Naming Community. The decision made by the group, with input from CWG external
counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An instruction letter has been
assembled for that purpose.
The Instruction Letter says: "This letter confirms the request of the Cross
Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on
Naming Related Functions (“CWG”) for the benefit of those of its listed
chartering organizations – the Country Code Names Supporting Organization
(“ccNSO”), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (“SSAC”), the Generic
Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), the At Large Advisory Committee
(“ALAC”) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) – that have affirmed
or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to be included herein (each a
“Consenting SO/AC” and collectively, the “Names Community”) that ICANN serve as
the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement."
This makes reference to the COs affirming in writing that they agree to be
included in the instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC.
As ICANN might formally reach out to us to obtain confirmation that one or more
COs have agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby kindly ask that you provide
such a written confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying to this email,
preferably on or before September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of the
agreement may proceed as planned.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|