[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think it is certain that you have strong rationale.  But as far as
being in the rough (nice to see IETF usage come into ICANN) it may be
you that is in the rough.

By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way
the Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO,
while Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role,
going towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise.

I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the IETF
Trust becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the
mark.  People have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an
existing trust might be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have,
we are holding off on trying to design that new trust.

If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say.

avri

On 26-Aug-15 13:41, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>
> SO: Well my point is that the rationale does not have to be that
> complicated to agree on. Nevertheless, at the fear of prolonging this
> unnecessarily, I agree we move on without rationale if others are fine
> with it.
>
> MM: I am _/not/_ fine with it. The rationale needs to be in there,
> because that is what we discussed and what everyone but Greg agreed
> was the concern. If you want to rephrase the rationale a bit to
> incorporate separability concerns more directly rather than
> nondiscrimination, that would be fine. But to say or imply that we
> have no rationale for this, and that we are simply not objecting,
> would be a completely inaccurate representation of what happened in
> this CWG.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus