[CWG-Stewardship] Design team list

John Poole jp1 at expri.com
Mon Mar 2 05:22:03 UTC 2015


Greg,
Thanks for the quick reply which helped clarify the purpose of Design Team
G. When I said "premature" I meant in the same context as your statement
that "perhaps this is premature 'in the CWG bubble,'" which frankly, is my
sole focus. I know you and others are involved in other processes and
keeping a close eye on the broader process which is a good thing--I thank
you and the others for being watchful and diligent. I agree 100% with your
statement: *"To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for
the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right
to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust
asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal
models it would be ICANN.  A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense
in any of our models."*

Remember I am not an "ICANN insider" so I will defer to your and Jonathan's
and Lise's wise judgment on how to best proceed on this--perhaps even the
formality  of a design team can be dispensed with--it sounds like you need
to move quickly "to slow the train down." If so, do whatever is necessary
to stop that* runaway train!*
Best regards,
John Poole

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and
> also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed
> models."
>
> First, Design Team G is anything but premature.  The ICG, the numbers
> community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all
> moving the trademark/domain name train down the track.  Numbers proposed
> it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the
> IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP.  On their
> last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further
> consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's
> position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do).  Perhaps this
> is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger
> world.  Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position
> to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down.  (It may be
> that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design
> team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to
> act.  And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to
> shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since
> they may just be wasting their time.)
>
> As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a
> reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine
> the issue for our own purposes.  However, I think that such an examination
> is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of
> recommending how to react to the  proposal.  I would be happy to clarify
> this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in
> language on the DT proposal to clarify this.
>
> I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision
> of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal
> of Design Team G."  There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not
> take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain
> name.  The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely
> aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with
> it) (see below).
>
> As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through
> the lens of the "proposed models."  Indeed, our current work plan seems
> intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my
> opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater
> clarity on the models).  On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper
> home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some
> yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails.  To my mind, it's
> actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the
> domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in
> the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co.
> model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN.
> A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models.
>
> However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law
> and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and
> should be vetted with other members of the CWG.  Hence the call for the
> Design Team.
>
> I hope that clears things up.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:
>
>> Lise and Jonathan:
>> I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>),
>> my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA
>> Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*,
>> in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such
>> property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and
>> intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose
>> beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community.
>>
>> The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious
>> conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as
>> proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work
>> of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but,
>> instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal
>> already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers
>> Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or
>> may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b)
>> external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated.
>>
>> Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it
>> appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of
>> responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has
>> already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even
>> developed and submitted its own proposal?
>>
>> I therefore object to proposed Design Team G
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G>
>> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> John Poole
>>
>> ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working
>> days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or
>> suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response
>> to the DT proposal*
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be
>>> available
>>> on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jonathan & Lise
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>
> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>
> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150301/2d370053/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list