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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Oh well, I guess that we better do what Milton  and the Numbers
community are telling us to do.
We are forced and have no choice.

Did I understand correctly?


Personally until such time as we see the changes offered by the IETF
Trust that addresses Names concerns (e.g. that their IETF focus of
fiduciary responsibility would not necessarily serve Names well in a
crisis) I think since letting ICANN hold the property just won't do, we
need to plan on a separate trust.  S

Should we be asking the lawyer to define it for us? Or is that just an
implementation detail.

avri


On 10-Aug-15 11:34, 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
> this.
>
>> 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
> reading.
>
> 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)
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus