[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[James Gannon]

I don’t understand this reasoning, we are happy with ICANN being the steward of the IANA functions, and retaining the ability to contract with different IFO’s if needed due to the failure of the IFO, but we are not happy with them being the steward of the IANA trademarks?
Under the CWG proposal the PTI will be the IFO and ICANN will be the IANA steward.

-James


On 6 Aug 2015, at 15:35, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton.mueller at PUBPOLICY.GATECH.EDU>> wrote:

ICANN was the IANA Functions Operator by virtue of a contract with the NTIA. A key aspect of the transition is that the community wanted to retain the ability to change IFOs. (I hope you are not, as an ICANN exec, trying to deny or reverse this basic principle of separability which has been accepted by all 3 communities.) As a logical consequence of separability, ICANN's status as IFO is contingent upon acceptable performance. Thus, it cannot own the IANA-related IPR; it must receive them and use them only as long as it it the designated IFO.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150806/af000a29/attachment.html>