<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't see the relationship you offer. The CRISP rationale refers to non-discriminatory use, whatever that means, not non-discriminatory transfer. In any event, we never discussed this statement, much less the relationship between the statement and separability.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think Jonathan was just trying to work with the CRISP verbiage when he drafted the statement, which accounts for the reference to the Numbering Services Operator and to this non-discriminatory use clause. In both cases, they do not reflect the thinking of our community and should be dropped, so we can move on. Insistance on including this unexplored clause would be a filibuster and a distortion of the basis for the CWG's non-objection to the minimum requirement.</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 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 Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:37 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">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale. To the extent we discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns, i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use
and/or ownership of the trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational communities chose a different IANA operator.<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></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: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use. When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a change in IFO away
from ICANN. <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><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection" stance as well.<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: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN would cooperate to
ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they are not.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</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">If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my opinions known. But I don't think it is necessary
for us to respond to the ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary.<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: I think this is a filibuster.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>