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

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:17:13PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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.

As I understand it, there was such a meeting and there will be more.
But as I tried to say in Buenos Aires and again in my last message,
meeting with "the leadership" of the numbers or protocol parameters
community(ies) on this does not help at all if the plan is to do
anything inconsistent with the proposal as published.  For (as I think
you know) "the leadership" of those communities can only act as a
conduit for taking things back to their respective communities.  The
IETF in particular simply does not delegate people to speak for the
IETF, except in extremely constrained ways (such as the IAOC for
negotiating contracts).

> 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.

I agree; though I would make a friendly amendment that, if the CWG
thinks the IETF Trust is somehow unsuited (as for instance Avri has
suggested) then with even greater urgency we need to get to work on
the new trust organization or else figure out what minimal changes to
the Trust agreement would put the names community at ease.  My view is
that we need to pick the path of least resistance consistent with the
ICG proposal.

Best regards,

A (for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com