[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

I would have agreed with your statement 3 days ago when you made it -- but
I was offline most of the weekend (due to a funeral and shiva for a good
friend's mother).

Given the CRISP Team's statement today, I'm far from certain that agreeing
to "an entity that is not the IFO" is enough to satiate CRISP.  While you
and I (and the ICANN Board) seem to believe that the identity and contours
of such entity can be an implementation matter, the CRISP Team's latest
pronouncement seems to leave less latitude.

That probably makes your last point -- that the
implementation does require some mechanism of accountability to each
community about its use of the relevant IPR that probably needs to be
hammered out in at least its broad outlines fairly quickly
​ -- all the more important​.  If the IETF Trust can be altered to fit
those mechanisms (whatever they may be), it's important to know that.  If
it can't, that's even more important to know.

We shall see....

Greg

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm using Greg's message becuase it's handy and highlights an
> important fact, but this is really to everyone.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> > the IANA and INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY.  I've also pointed out,
> > as have others, that the IETF Trust must be accountable to the names
> > community (and the numbers community) if it takes on this role.
>
> On re-reading this thread just now, I thinK I detect some emerging
> agreement.  If I'm understanding things correctly, it looks to me like
> people are agreeing that something consistent with the existing ICG
> proposal (an entity that is not the IFO) is possible in some cases,
> that the CWG can handle that as a matter of implementation and
> therefore maybe doesn't need to say anything to the ICG, and that the
> implementation does require some mechanism of accountability to each
> community about its use of the relevant IPR that probably needs to be
> hammered out in at least its broad outlines fairly quickly.  Does that
> seem fair?
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150817/0a1f715d/attachment.html>