<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 18 Aug 2015 00:38, "Greg Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> -- all the more important. If the IETF Trust can be altered to fit those mechanisms (whatever they may be), it's important to know that. If it can't, that's even more important to know.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: Just to be clear Greg do you really mean altering IETF trust? or getting appropriate wording/agreement between the operational communities and the IETF trust that ensures access (and required accountability) to the IANA TM.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Altering the IETF trust would seem to be out of scope and I am not sure I understand why we would want to do that. Neither would I expect IETF to make such structural changes just to convince their trust worthiness. I expect getting the right wording on how it will operate this particular TM is what is most important. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Remember IETF has other TM it's holding and there has been no known issue with it. Again apart from the conspiracy theory that Avri postulated (which I expect can be handled with the right wording in the agreement), I don't see any other damage that the IETF can cause.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Please let's move on to the next step on this matter.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> We shall see....<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> I'm using Greg's message becuase it's handy and highlights an<br>
>> important fact, but this is really to everyone.<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > the IANA and INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY. I've also pointed out,<br>
>> > as have others, that the IETF Trust must be accountable to the names<br>
>> > community (and the numbers community) if it takes on this role.<br>
>><br>
>> On re-reading this thread just now, I thinK I detect some emerging<br>
>> agreement. If I'm understanding things correctly, it looks to me like<br>
>> people are agreeing that something consistent with the existing ICG<br>
>> proposal (an entity that is not the IFO) is possible in some cases,<br>
>> that the CWG can handle that as a matter of implementation and<br>
>> therefore maybe doesn't need to say anything to the ICG, and that the<br>
>> implementation does require some mechanism of accountability to each<br>
>> community about its use of the relevant IPR that probably needs to be<br>
>> hammered out in at least its broad outlines fairly quickly. Does that<br>
>> seem fair?<br>
>><br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>><br>
>> A<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Andrew Sullivan<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>
><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>