[AFRI-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] Joint meeting of African community in BUENOS AIRES "African views on the Proposal of the Governance of Internet unique identifiers"

Mwendwa Kivuva Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Thu Jun 18 15:29:42 UTC 2015


However, I disagree with this statement on IANA trademarks:
>> "We observe that the CWG proposes to transfer IANA assests (sic)
>> including the IANA trademarks; we are in disagreement with this as we will
>> prefer that the trademarks remain with the contractor post-transition
>> (which is ICANN)"
>> My observation would be to allow more dialogue between the three
>> operational communities (names, numbers, protocol parameters) that utilize
>> the IPR (iana.org and IANA trademarks), and ensure there is consensus on
>> what to do with them. You will realize the numbering community had proposed
>> the IPRs remain in the public domain by being transferred to a neutral
>> entity which would then license the IPRs to the IFO to serve the
>> operational communities in perpetuity for free. The idea was, in the
>> unlikely event in future one community decides to transfer the IANA
>> functions related to them, then they should still be able to access the IPR
>> unrestricted.
> As you have rightly noted, the numbers community has proposed something
> different. I think what is important is that the AFRALO/AfriCANN community
> proposes what they prefer as well. There is obviously going to be need for
> the 3 communities to agree on quite a number of things based on the CWG
> proposal and i think its better to leave that to the ICG to coordinate. So
> while we may recommend the need for the 3 operational communities to
> coordinate, its also important we state our preference as a community. You
> may also note that this approach is synonymous to the numbers community
> proposal as well.

I support AFRALO/AFRICANN community to propose what they prefer on this
issue. However, as it currently stands, there is no way to measure
consensus on weather the community wants to transfer the IANA assets to a
neutral entity or the assets to remain with ICANN. We cannot prescribe this
to the community without asking them to endorse or reject the issue.

>> So the statement should have read something like "More dialogue is needed
>> between the three operational communities (names, numbers, and protocol
>> parameters) on transfer of IANA assets including the IANA trademark and
>> iana.org domain. The community should ensure there is consensus in the
>> final outcome."
> I think we could add an overall statement like above (not just for
> trademarks) but not remove our preferred preference. If majority of our
> community prefers transferring to IETF trust as the CRISP team recommended
> then we could specifically state that instead.
> True. The community can state its preference and leave a door for dialogue.


Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/attachments/20150618/9c766e9b/attachment.html>

More information about the AFRI-Discuss mailing list