[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

Jari,

Thank-you. This thinking, in combination with the board statement, appears
helpful to me.

Your pragmatic thinking as to how we find a way forward, consistent with the
CRISP proposal, and yet with time to fully develop as part of the
implementation.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: 14 August 2015 22:42
To: jrobinson at afilias.info
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

Thank you Jonathan.

I wanted to highlight one item from Jonathan's e-mail:

> 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.

I fully agree with this. And while the timeline is of course a big reason
behind this, it is also important that we do not lose sight of the big
picture and argue over details rather than bigger principles. Big projects
tend to be staged, and we clearly have an implementation step ahead of us.
Some of our work belongs there.

More concretely, I think it might actually be a reasonable way forward to
agree to the CRISP requirement, i.e., that domain/trademarks be held by an
independent entity rather than the IANA operator. Who that independent
entity might be and what specific agreements are needed can in my mind be a
part of the implementation phase. (And I think we should all recognise that
whatever arrangement gets setup in the implementation phase has to be
governed by a set of agreements were the responsibilities and rights are
laid out. But I don't think we need to write that agreement today.)

For what it is worth, I personally am comfortable with the CRISP requirement
and could live with several different arrangements of that requirement.

Jari