<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal">I just had a stunning sense of <i>déjà vu</i>. Leading to a sense of clarity.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">An entity external to ICANN, taking over the IANA brand and identity, leaving ICANN as a mere licensee, entering into a contract with ICANN where that external entity exercises oversight and control over IANA services (including the ability to find ICANN in default of that contract and ultimately the ability to enter into a contract with someone other than ICANN for those services).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">We had a name for that entity in our first draft proposal. Contract Co.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">So, it appears that we have found our Contract Co. and its name is the IETF Trust.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I guess we were right the first time, and we were ahead of our time (even though it appeared the CWG was lagging behind).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I suppose that this is actually a reasonable outcome (after all, it seemed reasonable to me 6 months ago). We just need to make sure that we resolve the concerns we had about Contract Co. the first time around (as well as the concerns we have specifically identified this time around with regard to the IETF Trust specifically).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Congratulations to the supporters of Contract Co. Our time has come again!</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">I will toast this with some Fresh Direct spring water. I'm sure they don't actually bottle it. But it's got their brand on it, so as far as I'm concerned it's from Fresh Direct and I trust their quality. So, bottom's up!</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Greg</p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Jonathan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I think this is an appropriate and reasonable approach to the situation right now. In particular I am very happy that the co-chairs recognize points #2 (don’t send an OC into another process), A (CRISP proposal
as backstop), and C (Sidley interpretation about compatibility of CRISP and ICANN holding the IPR is incorrect).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">As an ICG member I look forward to receiving CWG comments subject to the constraints you specify. I do believe ICG got it right when it said that we have a compatible situation as long as CWG does not arrive
at a consensus position against what was proposed by CRISP. It would probably be most constructive for CWG to propose specific additions or details to the proposal of IETF Trust as home for the IPR that would address the problems that some of our CWG members
have raised, rather than trying to push us all back to the drawing board. <u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14f2927cd5401043__MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">From the perspective of the co-chairs of the CWG, a number of key points emerge as follows:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">1.</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">There seemed to be an overarching sensitivity to where we ALL are in the process and the requirement to not let this IANA IPR issue derail us from a “programme management” perspective.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">2.</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">A second overarching point, directly related to 1 above, is the desire (and effectively a requirement) not to do anything which will necessitate change any of the three RFP responses such that this change would require one or more
of the three RFP respondents (names, numbers, protocols) to have to go back through their respective community processes with the associated risk of delaying the transition.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">3.</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">Through the current public comment period on the ICG proposal, there is the opportunity (for the CWG) to comment on the ICG proposal, but subject to 1 & 2 above.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">We also sought to better understand the various tracks of work (including that of the CWG) which have seen us arrive at this point and some of the detail in that work. Key points from that include:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>A.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">That there is a form of “backstop position” in the CRISP proposal that the IPR must not reside within the IFR in future. This underlying motivation derives from two points:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>a.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">In order to facilitate a smooth potential future transition of the IANA function<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in">
<u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>b.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">To ensure that the IPR will be used in a non-discriminatory manner.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>B.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">An underlying motivation was that the IPR should be held somehow “in trust” for future use by the relevant users of that IPR<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>C.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">That there seemed to be a strongly held view that the Sidley interpretation whereby ICANN could retain the IPR AND that this would be consistent with the CRISP proposal was not accurate.
<br>
The argument presented being that ICANN is in fact the IANA Functions Operator, at least in in the case of numbers.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span lang="EN-IE"><span>D.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-IE">The IETF is willing to be the holder of the IPR in the IETF trust which is for the public benefit and the global internet society. Therefore no conflict is envisaged by having the IPR held within the IETF Trust.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Finally, we considered some next steps / actions as follows:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">-</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">That the same group agree to talk again in approximately one week<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">-</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">CRISP is likely to prepare and share some responses to the Sidley memo on IPR<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">-</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">We can expect to see some further detail / information on the IETF Trust<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">-</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">ICG & CRISP offers any knowledge, information and assistance that they can reasonably provide<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-IE">-</span><span lang="EN-IE" style="font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">
</span><span lang="EN-IE">A request for any guidance on timelines from the CWG<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">In summary, it seems that we (the CWG) need to separate our prospective contribution to implementation from any comment we may wish to make now – effectively to the ICG proposal. For now, we need to focus our attention
on the ICG document and the urgent requirement is to consider whether or not the ICG proposal is consistent with the responses received and, if not, what comment we wish to submit. Moreover, to be mindful that any such comment must not require any of the three
RFP responses to be referred back to the relevant responding community if we are to retain the current overarching timetable. Put simply, what can usefully be done now and what can usefully be done later during the implementation phase.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">For your reference, we have included some relevant extracts from the CRISP response, the ICG proposal and the Sidley memo which we have used in thinking about this issue.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Thank-you<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE">Jonathan & Lise<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-IE"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<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>