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

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 01:37:45AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:

> I don't recall reading anything that explained the apparent concern that
> ICANN would use the IPR assets in a "discriminatory manner," so I am at a
> loss to understand the genesis of this reason (and not surprisingly, there
> is nothing in the Sidley memo that deals with this mysterious concern).

If it is not obvious by now that some people in other operational
communities do not trust ICANN to behave in a disinterested manner,
then I'm not sure how to convince people.  That is the explanation.

> It seems that this choice of the numbers community is being imposed on the
> names community solely based on separability concerns.

The proposal was developed in public some time ago (and rather a long
time, in this context).  We all of us had ample time to raise
objections to that and so on, and we knew that the ICG was going to
take the different community positions and try to stitch them
together.  CWG (and IETF, for that matter) declined to state anything
inconsistent with the numbes community proposal when delivering its
proposal, so the numbers community proposal is what we have.  

> thread and some of the statements in the ICG proposal, that the CWG and the
> names community are being strong-armed to accept the numbers community
> proposal whether we like it or not.  And that is deeply troubling.

I think that is an unfair interpretation of the state of affairs.  We
knew how the ICG was going to work, because it told us way in advance.
By delivering a proposal that was not inconsistent with this provision
of the numbers community proposal, the whole proposal automatically
inherited the proposal from the numbers community.  If we can't come
up with an implementation of the unified proposal, the unified
proposal falls apart.  There's no strong-arming: this is the process
we're working under, and by standing mute on this issue in its
proposal CWG in effect accepted the proposal from the other community.
It's not like there was a secret about it.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com