<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is going to the SOs and ACs tomorrow.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm not sure what "fixing" this means, since I don't consider the current position (ICANN retains the trademarks) "broken." Rather, I think the proposal to move the trademarks to the IETF Trust to be "broken." And we can't fix that.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That said, I see the following options available:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. Leave the proposal as it is, with ICANN retaining the marks.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. Remove the language referring to the trademarks, so it is ambiguous (but implicit that the relevant assets moving to PTI would most likelyinclude the trademarks).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">3. Amend the language so it is explicit that the marks are being transferred to PTI.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">4. Conform the language so that the marks are transferred to the IETF Trust.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I would support either option 1 or option 3. I could live with option 2, since it takes us back to prior versions, and leaves room for clarification down the road. I would object only to option 4, for the reasons previously stated.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alissa Cooper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in" target="_blank">alissa@cooperw.in</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In my opinion it would be preferable to get this fixed before the proposal goes out to the SOs and ACs for approval rather than waiting for the ICG to triage it, if possible.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Alissa<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> If what Bill says is true about the marks staying with ICANN, the CWG should change its draft to make the IETF trust the holder of the IANA trademarks and domains rather than PTI. This not only makes it compatible with the numbers proposal, but contributes to the principle of separability. One particular IFO should not "own" trademarks and domains for IANA; instead they should be held in trust by a neutral entity. If a specific IFO holds those marks for IANA it constitutes a serious switching cost and could cause confusion.<br>
><br>
> The CWG draft that "drifts" away from the protocols and numbers proposals seems to be inadvertent rather than deliberate, or at least I hope so. At any rate if we don't fix it here the ICG will have to deal with it during their process of reviewing incompatibilities between the three operational communities' proposals.<br>
><br>
> --MM<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-">cwg-stewardship-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of manning<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:12 AM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a> IANA<br>
>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback<br>
>> regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see<br>
>> attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments).<br>
>><br>
>> Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came out<br>
>> yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction,<br>
>> leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust?<br>
>><br>
>> CWG email re new draft - -<<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-</a><br>
>> stewardship/2015-June/003650.html><br>
>> Draft Document - <<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-</a><br>
>> stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e/FinalTransitionProposal_v5-<br>
>> Redline-commentsandeditsfordiscussion-0001.docx><br>
>><br>
>> Proposed text in most recent document -<br>
>><br>
>>> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide<br>
>> license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all<br>
>> applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with PTI's<br>
>> activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. "<br>
>><br>
>> this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would<br>
>> this make the ICG's job of aligning the various proposals from the affected<br>
>> parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult?<br>
>><br>
>> It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction,<br>
>> without concurrence from the affected parties.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> manning<br>
>> <a href="mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com">bmanning@karoshi.com</a><br>
>> PO Box 12317<br>
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295<br>
>> <a href="tel:310.322.8102" value="+13103228102">310.322.8102</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>