[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Greg Shatan]

I just had a stunning sense of *déjà vu*.  Leading to a sense of clarity.


An entity external to ICANN, taking over the IANA brand and identity,
leaving ICANN as a mere licensee, entering into a contract with ICANN where
that external entity exercises oversight and control over IANA services
(including the ability to find ICANN in default of that contract and
ultimately the ability to enter into a contract with someone other than
ICANN for those services).


We had a name for that entity in our first draft proposal.  Contract Co.


So, it appears that we have found our Contract Co. and its name is the IETF
Trust.


I guess we were right the first time, and we were ahead of our time (even
though it appeared the CWG was lagging behind).


I suppose that this is actually a reasonable outcome (after all, it seemed
reasonable to me 6 months ago).  We just need to make sure that we resolve
the concerns we had about Contract Co. the first time around (as well as
the concerns we have specifically identified this time around with regard
to the IETF Trust specifically).


Congratulations to the supporters of Contract Co.  Our time has come again!


I will toast this with some Fresh Direct spring water.  I'm sure they don't
actually bottle it.  But it's got their brand on it, so as far as I'm
concerned it's from Fresh Direct and I trust their quality.  So, bottom's
up!


Cheers,


Greg

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

> Jonathan
>
> I think this is an appropriate and reasonable approach to the situation
> right now. In particular I am very happy that the co-chairs recognize
> points #2 (don’t send an OC into another process), A (CRISP proposal as
> backstop), and C (Sidley interpretation about compatibility of CRISP and
> ICANN holding the IPR is incorrect).
>
>
>
> As an ICG member I look forward to receiving CWG comments subject to the
> constraints you specify. I do believe ICG got it right when it said that we
> have a compatible situation as long as CWG does not arrive at a consensus
> position against what was proposed by CRISP. It would probably be most
> constructive for CWG to propose specific additions or details to the
> proposal of IETF Trust as home for the IPR that would address the problems
> that some of our CWG members have raised, rather than trying to push us all
> back to the drawing board.
>
>
>
> From the perspective of the co-chairs of the CWG, a number of key points
> emerge as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.      There seemed to be an overarching sensitivity to where we ALL are
> in the process and the requirement to not let this IANA IPR issue derail us
> from a “programme management” perspective.
>
> 2.      A second overarching point, directly related to 1 above, is the
> desire (and effectively a requirement) not to do anything which will
> necessitate change any of the three RFP responses such that this change
> would require one or more of the three RFP respondents (names, numbers,
> protocols) to have to go back through their respective community processes
> with the associated risk of delaying the transition.
>
> 3.      Through the current public comment period on the ICG proposal,
> there is the opportunity (for the CWG) to comment on the ICG proposal, but
> subject to 1 & 2 above.
>
>
>
> We also sought to better understand the various tracks of work (including
> that of the CWG) which have seen us arrive at this point and some of the
> detail in that work. Key points from that  include:
>
>
>
> A.      That there is a form of “backstop position” in the CRISP proposal
> that the IPR must not reside within the IFR in future. This underlying
> motivation derives from two points:
>
> a.       In order to facilitate a smooth potential future transition of
> the IANA function
>
> b.       To ensure that the IPR will be used in a non-discriminatory
> manner.
>
> B.       An underlying motivation was that the IPR should be held somehow
> “in trust” for future use by the relevant users of that IPR
>
> C.       That there seemed to be a strongly held view that the Sidley
> interpretation whereby ICANN could retain the IPR AND that this would be
> consistent with the CRISP proposal was not accurate.
> The argument presented being that ICANN is in fact the IANA Functions
> Operator, at least in in the case of numbers.
>
> D.      The IETF is willing to be the holder of the IPR in the IETF trust
> which is for the public benefit and the global internet society. Therefore
> no conflict is envisaged by having the IPR held within the IETF Trust.
>
>
>
> Finally, we considered some next steps / actions as follows:
>
>
>
> -        That the same group agree to talk again in approximately one week
>
> -        CRISP is likely to prepare and share some responses to the
> Sidley memo on IPR
>
> -        We can expect to see some further detail / information on the
> IETF Trust
>
> -        ICG & CRISP offers any knowledge, information and assistance
> that they can  reasonably provide
>
> -        A request for any guidance on timelines from the CWG
>
>
>
> In summary, it seems that we (the CWG) need to separate our prospective
> contribution to implementation from any comment we may wish to make now –
> effectively to the ICG proposal. For now, we need to focus our attention on
> the ICG document and the urgent requirement is to consider whether or not
> the ICG proposal is consistent with the responses received and, if not,
> what comment we wish to submit. Moreover, to be mindful that any such
> comment must not require any of the three RFP responses to be referred back
> to the relevant responding community if we are to retain the current
> overarching timetable. Put simply, what can usefully be done now and what
> can usefully be done later during the implementation phase.
>
>
>
> For your reference, we have included some relevant extracts from the CRISP
> response, the ICG proposal and the Sidley memo which we have used in
> thinking about this issue.
>
>
>
> Thank-you
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150813/5db3f110/attachment.html>