[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:48:32PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Thanks for the share Grace. Briefly looking through the document seem to
> indicate the only disadvantage of leaving the trademarks to ICANN is the
> unlikely case of bankruptcy.

It seems to me that the memo is a little sanguine about the numbers
community's possible reaction to the idea of leaving the trademarks
and domain name with ICANN, and that it contains a misunderstanding.

The CWG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal does have PTI as the
IANA functions operator; but the numbers community proposal component
of the Final Proposal does not talk about the IANA functions operator,
but about the "IANA Numbering Services Operator".  Moreover, that
proposal says, "…the Internet Number Community believes that ICANN
should remain in the role of the IANA Numbering Services Operator for
at least the initial term of the new contract." (¶2076).  This means
that, from the numbers community point of view, the separation that
the Sidley memo depends on will not exist.

In such a case, leaving the trademarks and domain name with ICANN does
not achieve the goal of moving the assets, because ICANN can then hold
the assets up in an attempt to foil the ability of the numbers
community to terminate the agreement.  That was precisely the thing
that moving the assets was supposed to prevent.  This is made clear in
the Transition Proposal, ¶2083: "Identifying an organization that is
not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently
hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another
operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the
preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark
and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent
of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these
assets are used in a non- discriminatory manner for the benefit of the
entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective,
the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role."

It seems to me it would be really wise to get the reaction from the
numbers community to this idea before determining what the course of
action is.  They're the only community, after all, whose proposal
contained a specific proposal about what to do here, and for the total
proposal to work we need to be compatible with that (as noted in the
ICG's assessment, ¶35).

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com