[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Mueller, Milton L]

I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision; it's sufficient to say that we do not object.  Therefore, I would delete the phrase "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  If we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we discussed this particular rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our discussions to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we don't need to take and don't really have.

MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is prima facie inaccurate as anyone who has followed this list knows. We discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the names community, which is a derivative of this issue.

I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale, with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on the IETF Trust as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust.  In that respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to accommodate your minority position.

I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs. trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150826/de0ea157/attachment.html>