[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Greg Shatan]

There's really no such thing as being neutral at this point, since the
effect would be the same as affirmatively accepting the CRISP proposal.
Any position we take will be a decision.
 any of our three community proposals having to go back to the community
process and seek for re-approvalI think the IETF decision not to object
(which was still a decision) is difficult to compare, because that decision
would put the trademarks and domain names into the IETF Trust, a trust set
up by the IETF with the IETF as its beneficiary.  It's not surprising that
the IETF would feel comfortable with that decision (subject to possible
concerns about how that might change the IETF Trust).

I also don't think it's accurate to state that failing to embrace the CRISP
proposal will result in "any of our three community proposals having to go
back to the community process and seek for re-approval."  There's no
indication that needs to happen, and stating that it will tends to look
like an attempt to shove the CWG into accepting the CRISP proposal by
proposing that some awful thing will happen if we don't. That may not have
been the intent, but it certainly could be the effect.

As to Jari's first footnote, deciding to be neutral did not happen.  Would
we be doing what we're doing right now if it did? While I don't think
there's any benefit to rehashing things, the CWG's decision and statement
regarding the "silent" nature of the proposal was more nuanced than that,
and it was clear that the effect was to reserve the CWG's ability to face
this issue head-on, which we are doing now. Backing into a decision was
never the intent, and it should not be the effect or the interpretation.

We need to do what we are doing, which is to subject the options to
scrutiny, and come to an affirmative decision on the merits and substance
of these options, based on both legal and policy considerations.  We need
to decide which option is the most appropriate option without being
pressured into accepting any particular option (since I've been told that
we are not being "strongarmed" into a particular outcome, and that it would
be "unfair" for us to feel that we were).

As to Jari's second footnote, it's good to hear that the IETF is
considering the consequences of the CRISP proposal. I think it behooves the
CWG to determine what our "requirements" would be if the CRISP proposal
came to pass, both generally and specifically as to the IETF Trust (as
opposed to some other existing or yet-to-be-created third party). We may
need to do this even before we decide whether the CRISP proposal is one
that we will adopt (indeed, it's really part of the same analysis).  We
will then need to communicate that promptly to the ICG and to the other
communities. If we don't do that, this is going to become yet another
decision delivered to us, instead of made by us.

Greg

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

>
> > Would it not be better for the CWG-Stewardship to just go neutral on
> this matter (like the IETF) and let the CRISP team's view prevail because I
> don't understand the essence of a cross-operational community group when
> one of the group currently have no specific direction/view on the subject
> of discussion.
>
> For what it is worth, I agree with Milton *.
>
> We’ve been in neutral mode at the IETF since last year, for various
> reasons. As noted, we’ve expressed our willingness to step up and have the
> IETF Trust provide a home if needed. Would be happy to do so **. Or we
> could participate in other solutions. But lets avoid any of our three
> community proposals having to go back to the community process and seek for
> re-approval. I think that would be silly.
>
> Jari
>
> *) And didn’t that already happen? It was clearly stated at ICANN53 that
> the CWG proposal was silent on this topic. I think the rest is
> implementation, and we should accommodate the whole proposal as specified.
>
> **) Also, I can say from the IETF perspective that we are working on
> providing some suggested implementation approach(es) that satisfies the
> numbers community’s requirements and will communicate to CWG and CRISP when
> we have something written up. The details matter and it will take time, but
> we are considering this as an implementation issue, not something that
> should fundamentally change the transition proposal.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150810/ed1a47b1/attachment.html>