<p dir="ltr">On 11 Aug 2015 02:06, "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> ><br>
> > The IETF Trust is excellent and full of trustworthy people.<br>
> > I trust them completely to protect IETF interests.<br>
> > Their fiduciary responsibility is, in fact, to the IETF interests.<br>
> > In a crisis that could be problematic for the Names interests.<br>
><br>
> IANA is a resource that pertains to all IETF protocols, not just domain names (DNS). Thus it is appropriate for a trust rooted in the IETF to control its identity.<br>
><br>
> I would like to know more from Avri about how "names interests" (as if the names community had a unified set of 'interests' rather than being a collection of warring interests) might conflict with IETF interests. The worst scenario one can imagine is that for some unknown reason IETF would refuse to allow the names community's desired IFO to use the trademarks. This seems easily remedied. Put into the transition plan a simple commitment that IETF Trust would recognize the recommendations of an IANA Functions Review. After all, AT BEST those who favor ICANN as the TM holder can propose that ICANN should make the same kind of commitment. The difference, of course, is that ICANN has a huge conflict of interest in any attempt to transfer the domain and marks, and the IETF doesn't.<br>
><br>
SO: While I agree this is indeed all it will require to ensure IETF complies, I don't necessarily agree that such compliance responsibility would be different if it were with ICANN. Otherwise I would have said ICANN will have even been a better option considering that it will become a member organization and the collective operational community can ensure it complies with its TM obligations.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Nevertheless I guess it doesn't really matter convincing that ICANN should retain the TM as it seem those who don't want IETF seem not to want ICANN as well. So it seem i am alone on this one, which is fine. </p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, I think it will be quite disappointing if IETF agrees to setting up an independent trust based on reasons shared by Avri as I think it undermines the role of the IETF. I think because we have made this a 3 operational community thing makes us see IETF as just one of those communities, IMO they are more than that. I would even think they should have been the custodian of the TM long time ago (even before ICANN) but I guess their approach of "if it ain't broke don't fix it may have gotten us to this state"</p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe we need to remind ourselves about the basic fact that the IETF defined the number identifier (IP and AS) and also the names identifier. How then can we expect the creator not to allow access to the TM for use by its creation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Seem to me we may be looking for something more than just access to the TM. If there is really a part of this transition that the doesn't need any politicizing, I think the TM should such item. Come to think of it, IETF even uses the TM far more than the other 2 operational communities, so they seem to even have more stake in this.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> I find the accountability concerns expressed here about IETF to be odd, kind of like the psychological malady known as projection, where one attributes one's own flaws and problems onto some innocent victim and blames them for it. I am pretty familiar with the quirks and clubbiness that sometimes characterizes IETF hierarchy, but the IETF isn't in the business of making money off IANA or DNS, unlike certain other participants in this process, and it doesn't have a long history of accountability problems and abuses, as ICANN does. It can't compel anyone to use its standards, it doesn't issue contracts of adhesion as ICANN does, it doesn't tax its users and generate tens of millions of dollars or dabble in geopolitics. It main interest seems to be in making things work.<br>
><br>
SO: +1 on this</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
The choice between the two seems pretty straightforward to me, especially given ICANN's rooting in the names community only.<br>
> <br>
We can argue about this but I guess it doesn't matter at this time ;)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<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>
</p>