<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">+1<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>CW<div><br></div><div>PS:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Please see my comments at:</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/msg00027.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/msg00027.html</a></div><div></div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Regarding 'separation(s)', <<Remedial action would have to be taken long before the whole process</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">of separation, as described, could take effect. Therefore I rather doubt the necessity or wisdom of</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">making structural changes now, to deal with a doomsday scenario that cannot be allowed to</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">materialise, ever.>></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">PPS: what is this 'drift'? Is that a typo for 'draft'?</div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><br></div><div><div><br></div><div>On 11 Jun 2015, at 19:37, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 04:53:56PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy. Both<br>the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN<br>because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own<br>those marks.<br></blockquote><br>The IETF did _not_ want "the marks separate from ICANN". The IETF's<br>consensus was clearly that it didn't need that. Later, it became<br>clear that nobody would object if others wanted the IETF Trust to hold<br>things.<br><br>Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name<br>doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for<br>separation. In the event of a friendly separation in which all<br>parties are co-operating, then the right redirections will be added (at<br>the http level, for instance) for the relevant resources, and there<br>won't be any operational problem. On the other hand, in the event of<br>a contested separation, there is no reason at all to suppose that a<br>legal agreement would be helpful: the incumbent operator would contest<br>the change, regardless of who had control of the resource, and the<br>remedies would have to be pursued via the law. That would be too slow<br>to be practical, so the relevant operational community would have to<br>make an emergency change anyway. It would be extremely disruptive no<br>matter what the outcome, and so the emergency change would be<br>effectively a permanent one. <br><br>Best regards,<br><br>A<br><br>-- <br>Andrew Sullivan<br><a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>