[CWG-Stewardship] FW: IPR follow up

[Mueller, Milton L]

GS wrote:
Furthermore, I don't think that there are significant economic or resource differences between working up an arrangement with the IETF and working up an arrangement for a new trust.

MM: Greg, when you say things like that, you lose a lot of credibility in this discussion.  There is a vast difference in complexity, time, and uncertainty in creating an entirely new entity and governance structure versus adding a function to an existing, known, functioning and widely trusted entity. There are already widespread concerns that the proposal is too complex and prior to this several options were rejected because they were creating new structures. Now you want to add another Ptolemaic cycle to the celestial machine.

During our discussions of the DT-IPR principles you have repeatedly attempted to transform and enlarge the concept of “neutrality” to include some kind of shared governance role for all three OCs, despite the fact that the IETF Trust provides the only type of neutrality that is really needed for a separable IANA, which is the community assurance agreement. Two of the three OCs have formalized their support for IETF Trust, and in the third one, as far as I can tell, no one else I know of has echoed your concerns about this.

We do need to have the discussion of the principles we worked up in DT-IPR, but please don’t be surprised or become obstructionist when you learn that most of us are ready to move on and get this done.

--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160112/5d9ae2ee/attachment.html>