<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Milton,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Of course, I'm serious. I don't believe we discussed this statement much if at all </span><font face="verdana, sans-serif">-- <span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">"</span><span style="color:black">in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community." There was a fair amount of discussion of separability concerns (though not any decision to adopt that as a rationale), i.e., fears that ICANN would not transfer or allow use of the trademarks and domain names to a new IFO chosen by an operational community. However, I don't read the quoted clause to refers to issues of separation and separability -- it refers to how the assets will be used. And I don't think we ever discussed the meaning or import of this clause, much less adopted it as a rationale. For instance, we've never discussed what "use in a non-discriminatory manner" means.</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black">I don't think we came to any consensus on this list on a rationale, only on support for the "minimum requirement" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to a party other than the IFO.</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black">I think that Avri and Alan reflect more accurately the reason for our non-objection -- it was a pragmatic decision, essentially "going along to get along" (and to move along).</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black">There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject.</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Greg</span></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:25 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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision; it's sufficient to say that we do not object. Therefore, I would delete the phrase "</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">in
order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> If we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we discussed this particular
rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our discussions to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we don't need to take and don't really have.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is prima facie inaccurate
as anyone who has followed this list knows. We discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the
names community, which is a derivative of this issue. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale, with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on the IETF Trust
as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust. In that respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to accommodate your minority position.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs. trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>