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

[Gomes, Chuck]

It seems to me that we are way past the time when all impacted parties should start talking with one another instead of at one another.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 2:14 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

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
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship