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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Aug 10 16:17:13 UTC 2015

I have a strong preference that the TM and domain name remain with ICANN.

The CWG chose not to delve further in this matter 
prior to issuing its final proposal. Regardless 
of why that happened, that is a fact. When the 
report was issued and the issue was raised as to 
the meaning of the "placeholder" words in Annex 
S, the reply included the words "Therefore it is 
our firm view that it is specifically not in 
conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN 
proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and 
to discuss a potential consolidated position, we 
have extended an offer to the leadership of the 
other two operational communities for a call on 
Tuesday, 7 July." (Message from Jonathan 
Robinson, 02 July 2015). That, I presume, was the 
basis for the ICG issuing its consolidated proposal.

I do not recall what was reported out of that meeting, if indeed it happened.

Based on all of that, I still PREFER an option 
where ICANN holds the assets. However, I can live 
with them being transferred to the IETF Trust 
with appropriate contractual language to give the 
names community security that the assets will be 
available for them regardless of the paths taken 
to provide IANA service for the Numbers and Protocol communities.

Establishing an understanding with the IETF Trust 
so that the details can be completed as part of 
the implementation schedule is, in my mind, the number one priority.


At 10/08/2015 11:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:04:31AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > And shouldn't the names community have that opportunity now?
>There are lots of things that, in an ideal world, we might like to
>have happen.  Unfortunately, we're constrained by the calendar in this
>world.  I suggest that even if the names community wants to discuss
>this with all logically possible options open to it, the only live
>options now are "somehow consistent with what the numbers community
>published in January" or "no transition".  See below for why I think
> > In any event, that doesn't mean an entire proposal would be sent back for
> > re-approval.
>No, but that doesn't help.
>Suppose that we wanted the numbers community to agree that ICANN
>itself meets the criteria in the portion of the ICG proposal that came
>from the numbers community.  I suggest that this flies in the face of
>the plain meaning of the text at ¶ 2076 and ¶ 2083.  So we'd need to
>find some way to get the numbers community to agree with this novel
>Now, the way the "numbers community" is structured, this would involve
>coming to agreement with the CRISP team.  They would then have to
>evaluate consensus among the RIRs.  To do that, each RIR would need to
>go back to its community and run its consensus process.  Each RIR does
>this differently, but it takes time in every case.  I'd be astonished
>if a change like this could be decided in under a month.  If there are
>adjustments that have to happen in order to get the relevant support,
>then that too has to go through the relevant paths and back to all the
>various RIRs.
>And of course, all of this assumes that names and numbers don't come
>up with something inconsistent with the text that came from the IETF.
>If so, then you have that community to involve, too; and changes to
>the IANAPLAN WG's product cannot possibly happen in less than a month,
>assuming everyone was already on board (because of the length of time
>last call would take.  If we tried to run it short, we'd create an
>avenue for appeal).
>Once all of that is done, then the ICG would have to knit the new
>state of affairs into its proposal and await public comment on that.
>I don't see how all of this happens in time for the proposal to be
>demonstrably supported by everyone in time for the Dublin ICANN
>meeting.  I do not believe there is any remaining slack in the
>timeline.  And we cannot fail to do this in the completely above-board
>way I just outlined, because if we did we would not be acting
>consistently with the NTIA criteria, and the NTIA would not then be
>able to certify the transition plan, so the transition wouldn't go
>ahead anyway.
>Therefore, I believe that the CWG needs to come up with a resolution
>that is consistent with the proposal the ICG has put out, or else
>accept that the CWG's position will derail the transition.  This is
>not any other community attempting to force anything down CWG's
>throat.  This is just the fact of the calendar and the fact that the
>CWG was dealing with other things since January.  Having stood mute on
>the principles underlying this topic when the proposals were going to
>the ICG, we now need to undertake implementation consistent with what
>the ICG published.  That includes the proposal from the numbers
>community, so that's the principle we need to work with.
>If any of this is unclear or you want further elaboration, I'd be
>happy to discuss either on list or on the phone or however you like.
>The above is, of course, just my own analysis; and I have no special
>knowledge or power in this, but I'm reasonably confident in my sense
>of how long this could take in those other communities.
>Best regards,
>A (only for myself, as ever)
>Andrew Sullivan
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list