[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:55:19PM +0000, James Gannon wrote:
> Under the CWG proposal the PTI will be the IFO and ICANN will be the IANA steward.
> 

I think this misses a nuance.  The above is not true from the POV of
the non-names communities.  Under the CWG proposal, both the IETF and
RIRs will conclude (or maintain) their agreement with ICANN, not PTI.
The stewardship of their respective functions is _already_ underaken
by those communities.  This is the point the IETF at least has been
making all along -- from long before NTIA kicked this off.  So the
distinction from (say) the numbers community between "ICANN" and "PTI"
is inoperative.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com