<p dir="ltr">Thank you Steve for providing further historical background to this and hopefully it helps answer Greg's question about the uniqueness of the IETF (in this context) and the appropriateness in transferring the marks to them. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall I think there is a common understanding on the promptness that would be ensured using the IETF trust. Since there is no immediate negative consequences of the transfer that is envisaged coupled with the fact that this issue is a dependency for the transition, I suggest that we move on using the IETF trust.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For the record, I am in support of ensuring that there will still be opportunity provided to transfer from IETF to a newly setup trust whenever it's absolutely required (though I don't envisage this).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 12 Jan 2016 7:50 a.m., "Steve Crocker" <<a href="mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org">steve.crocker@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew,<br>
<br>
You’ve spoken too mildly. Setting up a lightweight trust that parallels the IETF Trust is indeed a small piece of work, but the direction of the proposal for a separate trust is implies a LOT of work, exploration of an unbounded and undefined set of issues, and an unclear but potentially substantial level of expenditure. So, your suggestion that expedient and workable should be given high value is indeed a strong point. But I will suggest the argument in favor of the IETF Trust is even stronger.<br>
<br>
The marks and domain names were transferred from the IETF to ICANN as part of the creation of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA), in 2005. (I think I have the date correct.) Prior to that, the marks were held by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), Bob Kahn’s non-profit operation. There was a lengthy tussle between Bob Kahn and the IETF that lasted a few years. Bob had been providing the support for the IETF and had been controlling its funds. Eventually, Bob withdrew from providing these services and controlling the funds, and the IETF took control of its finances and its services. The transfer of the IANA marks to ICANN was with the clear understanding these fundamentally belonged to the IETF. In my view, it is entirely natural and appropriate for these marks to be placed in the IETF Trust and that arrangements for their continued use by ICANN in order to provide the IANA service is all that’s necessary.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jan 12, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:56:41PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
><br>
>> But to my mind, it is expedient rather than preferable.<br>
><br>
> I won't speak for the IETF Trust, but speaking as a Trustee I can say<br>
> that _I_ think it is expedient rather than preferable, too. Given<br>
> that whatever we do has to be completely sewn up in time for a<br>
> transition in Q4 of 2016 (i.e. roughly 10 months from now), I think<br>
> that "expedient and workable" ought to be a high-value qualifying<br>
> criterion.<br>
><br>
>> Actually, I think it would be quite helpful. Furthermore, I don't think<br>
>> that there are significant economic or resource differences between working<br>
>> up an arrangement with the IETF and working up an arrangement for a new<br>
>> trust.<br>
><br>
> You are suggesting is that hammering out a new trust agreement among<br>
> three operational communities that will specify a new governance<br>
> structure, and then hammering out all the other issues that one needs<br>
> in an agreement, will take no more time than just doing the second of<br>
> those things. I would like to know why you think that. It's<br>
> certainly true that setting up a new trust is the work of an afternoon<br>
> for a competent lawyer. But I don't think that's the hard part here.<br>
> Given that we've had months to tackle this question and haven't yet<br>
> even agreed amongst ourselves what principles should apply, I cannot<br>
> say I'm optimistic that setting up a completely new legal entity in<br>
> collaboration with two other communities -- both of which have to go<br>
> through their own consensus processes in order to agree to do it --<br>
> will be the fast path.<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>