<p dir="ltr">On 6 Aug 2015 3:49 pm, "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> I don't recall reading anything that explained the apparent concern that ICANN would use the IPR assets in a "discriminatory manner," so I am at a loss to understand the genesis of this reason (and not surprisingly, there is nothing in the Sidley memo that deals with this mysterious concern).<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> First, your assertion is factually untrue. There has been extensive discussion of the switching costs associated with allowing an incumbent operator to control the IPR associated with the service.<br>
><br>
Just to clarify, I presume the cost referred is on whether ICANN will be willing to allow access to the trademark in a manner currently experienced if an operational community decides to move it's function to another operator? If I am write, I think ICANN board confirmed such will be possible and I think the legal memo also proposed how to ensure such possibility. Other than that, is there any other specific cost you refer? If yes, would that cost have been likely as well if NTIA had decided to transition IANA to another operator today?<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> <br>
><br>
> Second, you have now admitted that the Sidley memo fails to deal with the transferability concern. Since this concern is, and has been, the key consideration behind the call for a transfer of the IPR, its omission indicates that the memo has little value in these discussions.<br>
><br>
> <br>
While I am not Greg, I believe the memo suggested ways to ensure ICANN complies with the IANA trademarks usage/access requirements. There is also an indication from the memo that the community would have the accountability mechanism/powers to fix things if need be.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall I think the fact that the CWG-Stewardship is not owning up to have it's view on this issue is of great concern. Initially it was said that the memo is what will help, we now have the memo and now we are saying it's a cross-operational community group that will help.<br>
Would it not be better for the CWG-Stewardship to just go neutral on this matter (like the IETF) and let the CRISP team's view prevail because I don't understand the essence of a cross-operational community group when one of the group currently have no specific direction/view on the subject of discussion.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Hopefully we will recognise that time is ticking and an issue as small as this could indeed affect the overall transition from proceeding.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
</p>