[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Jari Arkko]

> Would it not be better for the CWG-Stewardship to just go neutral on this matter (like the IETF) and let the CRISP team's view prevail because I don't understand the essence of a cross-operational community group when one of the group currently have no specific direction/view on the subject of discussion.

For what it is worth, I agree with Milton *.

We’ve been in neutral mode at the IETF since last year, for various reasons. As noted, we’ve expressed our willingness to step up and have the IETF Trust provide a home if needed. Would be happy to do so **. Or we could participate in other solutions. But lets avoid any of our three community proposals having to go back to the community process and seek for re-approval. I think that would be silly.

Jari

*) And didn’t that already happen? It was clearly stated at ICANN53 that the CWG proposal was silent on this topic. I think the rest is implementation, and we should accommodate the whole proposal as specified.

**) Also, I can say from the IETF perspective that we are working on providing some suggested implementation approach(es) that satisfies the numbers community’s requirements and will communicate to CWG and CRISP when we have something written up. The details matter and it will take time, but we are considering this as an implementation issue, not something that should fundamentally change the transition proposal.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150810/2688dbac/signature.asc>