[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 18:45:09 UTC 2016
Thanks.
Glad to hear we are all set to go.
avri
On 25-Sep-16 14:01, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Avri,
>
> It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the
> letter and that ICANN can sign it.
>
> There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change
> suggested by Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly
> improve the readability of the letter (spelling out "Community
> Coordination Group" the first time it is used, instead of saying
> "CCG"). Whether or not this is done, the letter is ready to be signed.
>
> I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting
> itself. After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have
> kept up with the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread
> raising a number of 12th hour objections. This exchange may have
> created an appearance of more general confusion. The confusion is
> actually quite isolated, as far as I can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I
> both responded with explanations, which I thought cleared up any
> confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter of instruction."
> The high-level explanation is this:
>
> The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating
> to the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the
> Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity
> that encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could
> perform the limited function of signing on behalf of the Names
> Community. ICANN said that it could. The "Letter of Instruction"
> formally instructs ICANN to sign on behalf of the Names Community and
> sets out the parameters of ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is
> needed because signing the Agreement without any explanation makes it
> look like ICANN has full authority and discretion to act as the Names
> Community under the Agreement.
>
> The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this
> confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the
> CCG. In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on
> implementing our work. If working group results could be undone after
> the fact by a single confused participant, ICANN probably would not
> even exist.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> 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>
> > <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <http://iana.org> domain name (and
> > maybe some others, but
> > > iana.org <http://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>
> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> <mailto: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>
> > <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>
> <mailto: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>
> > <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>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list