[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Avri Doria]

If the reason for not having the property with the IFO is separability,
then that can be a rationale for Numbers and Protocols not wanting to
let ICANN retain the property.

It does not serve as a rationale for Names for whom the PTI is the IFO
and for which there is a separation process defined.  It therefore
cannot be Names' rationale.

As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and
moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs.

avri

On 26-Aug-15 22:47, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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.
> Nothing wrong with that, but you are not addressing the point being discussed, which is what is the rationale, the reason, the justification, for not wanting the trademarks and domains to be in the hands of the incumbent IFO.  A Trust is a proposed solution, not a "rationale"
>
>> 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.  
> I said no one offered a _better_ alternative. Creating a new Trust is something I thought we all recognized as possible, but not desirable, because of the time involved in creating and designing it, and the risks of creating something new when we cannot know much about how it will actually work. 
>
>> 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.
> That's a more accurate assessment of where we are. Still, I would not say we are "holding off;" I would say that if an existing trust can satisfy the requirements, perhaps with some modifications, all the comments I have seen indicate that CWG is strongly inclined to go with an existing Trust, namely IETF Trust. I haven't detected any appetite here for opening up a new process to start a new trust unless we absolutely have to. And if the IETF Trust can be adjusted to serve this purpose, we won't have to. The legal analysis was pretty negative about creating a new trust.
>
>> If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say.
> Sorry, you are missing the point about what the rationale is for. A rationale is not the proposed solution, it is a statement of the problem we need a solution for.  The rationale that Greg objected to was that the trademarks and domains should facilitate nondiscriminatory use; i.e., the rationale is about separability. 
>
>
>


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