[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Martin Boyle]

For what it's worth, I can live with either ICANN holding the rights in its role of steward for the names community - but can see why that might not be appropriate for numbers and protocols - or for a separate trust to take on this role for all communities.  

It should *not* be with the operator (PTI or successor) except on a right to use.

Like others I think setting up a new trust to manage this role sounds like yet another layer of bureaucracy and I fail to see how it would add any value - it certainly could add risk (the creation of a new entity and new layers always does).

I realise that it is implementation, but whoever carries out the role there needs to be a clear accountability of that organisation to names, numbering and protocol-parameter communities that the use of these resources will be granted to the organisation(s) carrying out the role of the IANA functions operator(s).

ICANN does this currently:  would it need some form of bylaw change to ensure that it does have to grant rights to the operator(s) or its successor(s), if it were to continue in this role?  

IETF could do this in the future, but again needs to show some framework for accountability to the operational communities.

As Jari says, this is an implementation issue, but one which we need to nail down in time for the proposal to go forward.


Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: 10 August 2015 04:27
To: Mueller, Milton L
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo


> 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.