[CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
avri doria
avri at acm.org
Sun Sep 25 16:22:41 UTC 2016
Hi,
I have gotten lost in this discussion.
Has all been completed on the letter? Can ICANN sign if the transition
is freed to move ahead?
If not, what is missing? I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but
am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting.
thanks
avri
On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Milton,
>
> I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this
> process. This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting)
> multistakeholder process. We put in months (really, years) of
> thorough and well-considered work on the IPR issues alone. This
> involved a significant group of stakeholders (in this case, across the
> names, protocol parameters and numbers communities). The result of
> this work has been put through the public comment process, and fully
> agreed and brought to conclusion with the broad support of diverse
> stakeholders.
>
> It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any
> one person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is
> done.
>
> In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from
> all angles, sometimes to a fault. This is especially true early on,
> when it's important to consider all viewpoints. But we are far, far
> past that point. Our decisions have been made. Our commitments are
> clear. It's time to get it done.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
> I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not
> understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who
> actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a
> position to hold up this process.
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> > On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not
> > wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust
> > interest here. But I am concerned that we not delay the
> transition by
> > organizational mmisunderstanding. In particular,
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson
> wrote:
> >> 2. I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate
> the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust,
> thus the interest in IPR.
> >
> > I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to
> > ensure that each operational community's interests are properly
> > represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR. The Trust is
> > undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of
> > the various communities, consistent with the Trust's
> responsibilities
> > in respect of the IPR.
> >
> >> 3. The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as
> indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been
> explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to
> the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently
> ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is
> the eventual scope of these instructions?
> >
> > The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the
> > relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the
> > Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's
> > needs. In the case of the names community, this necessarily
> involves
> > instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA
> > trademarks and the iana.org <http://iana.org> domain name (and
> maybe some others, but
> > iana.org <http://iana.org> is the bit one).
> >
> >> 4. I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials
> might be in order. If so, these should take place well before
> anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above)
> >> Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the
> draft Letter of Instructions.
> >
> > In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the
> > issues have not been completely vented in the CWG. Given the amount
> > of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little
> worried
> > (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is
> needed. The
> > IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community
> need in
> > fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to
> happen on
> > schedule. I don't really understand why there could be any
> confusion
> > about this.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list