<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">There's really no such thing as being neutral at this point, since the effect would be the same as affirmatively accepting the CRISP proposal. Any position we take will be a decision.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">any of our three community proposals having to go back to the community process and seek for re-approval</span>I think the IETF decision not to object (which was still a decision) is difficult to compare, because that decision would put the trademarks and domain names into the IETF Trust, a trust set up by the IETF with the IETF as its beneficiary. It's not surprising that the IETF would feel comfortable with that decision (subject to possible concerns about how that might change 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 also don't think it's accurate to state that failing to embrace the CRISP proposal will result in "<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">any of our three community proposals having to go back to the community process and seek for re-approval.</span>" There's no indication that needs to happen, and stating that it will tends to look like an attempt to shove the CWG into accepting the CRISP proposal by proposing that some awful thing will happen if we don't. That may not have been the intent, but it certainly could be the effect.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As to Jari's first footnote, deciding to be neutral did not happen. Would we be doing what we're doing right now if it did? While I don't think there's any benefit to rehashing things, the CWG's decision and statement regarding the "silent" nature of the proposal was more nuanced than that, and it was clear that the effect was to reserve the CWG's ability to face this issue head-on, which we are doing now. Backing into a decision was never the intent, and it should not be the effect or the interpretation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We need to do what we are doing, which is to subject the options to scrutiny, and come to an affirmative decision on the merits and substance of these options, based on both legal and policy considerations. We need to decide which option is the most appropriate option without being pressured into accepting any particular option (since I've been told that we are not being "strongarmed" into a particular outcome, and that it would be "unfair" for us to feel that we were).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">As to Jari's second footnote, it's good to hear that the IETF is considering the consequences of the CRISP proposal. I think it behooves the CWG to determine what our "requirements" would be if the CRISP proposal came to pass, both generally and specifically as to the IETF Trust (as opposed to some other existing or yet-to-be-created third party). We may need to do this even before we decide whether the CRISP proposal is one that we will adopt (indeed, it's really part of the same analysis). We will then need to communicate that promptly to the ICG and to the other communities. If we don't do that, this is going to become yet another decision delivered to us, instead of made by us. </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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Jari Arkko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net" target="_blank">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><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.<br>
<br>
</span>For what it is worth, I agree with Milton *.<br>
<br>
We’ve been in neutral mode at the IETF since last year, for various reasons. As noted, we’ve expressed our willingness to step up and have the IETF Trust provide a home if needed. Would be happy to do so **. Or we could participate in other solutions. But lets avoid any of our three community proposals having to go back to the community process and seek for re-approval. I think that would be silly.<br>
<br>
Jari<br>
<br>
*) And didn’t that already happen? It was clearly stated at ICANN53 that the CWG proposal was silent on this topic. I think the rest is implementation, and we should accommodate the whole proposal as specified.<br>
<br>
**) Also, I can say from the IETF perspective that we are working on providing some suggested implementation approach(es) that satisfies the numbers community’s requirements and will communicate to CWG and CRISP when we have something written up. The details matter and it will take time, but we are considering this as an implementation issue, not something that should fundamentally change the transition proposal.<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>