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

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:10:52PM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> Oh well, I guess that we better do what Milton  and the Numbers
> community are telling us to do.

For what it's worth, I think that needlessly personalizes this issue.
Milton is arguing strongly, but the numbers proposal has been around
for months and the names community elected not to put forth a position
inconsistent with it.  If CWG now wants to ask that something
inconsistent with what ICG has published be the path we follow, nobody
should be surprised that it would create some trouble.

> We are forced and have no choice.
> 
> Did I understand correctly?

If what you mean by that is, "The march of time and CWG's low
engagement with the numbers community proposal between January and
June (because of other higher priorities) means that certain options
are now foreclosed, and we might not like the remaining ones," then I
think you did understand.  

> 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.

It seems to me that, before asking for legal advice on how to do
something, one ought to be clear about what one wants.  I agree with
you, however, that a separate trust appears to me (and I speak only
for myself) would satisfy the requirements in the ICG proposal out
now, and might be a way forward.  Perhaps we should spend some time
kicking around what a good trust arrangement would look like to the
CWG.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com