[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Alan Greenberg]

"As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN 
and moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs."

Exactly. It is not what we "decided" through a specific thought 
process prior to the issue being locked into the CRISP proposal. 
Given that we believe it can be made to work, it is a pragmatic decision.

Alan


At 26/08/2015 11:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:


>If the reason for not having the property with the IFO is separability,
>then that can be a rationale for Numbers and Protocols not wanting to
>let ICANN retain the property.
>
>It does not serve as a rationale for Names for whom the PTI is the IFO
>and for which there is a separation process defined.  It therefore
>cannot be Names' rationale.
>
>As far as I can tell Names rationale for not leaving it with ICANN and
>moving it to a suitable trust is compromise with the other 2 OCs.
>
>avri
>
>On 26-Aug-15 22:47, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> By and large I think a lot of us are accepting that because of the way the
> >> Numbers and Protocol Operational Communities see ICANN as the IFO, while
> >> Names sees the PTI as the IFO with ICANN in the Stewarsdhip role, going
> >> towards a Trust makes sense as a compromise.
> > Nothing wrong with that, but you are not addressing the point 
> being discussed, which is what is the rationale, the reason, the 
> justification, for not wanting the trademarks and domains to be in 
> the hands of the incumbent IFO.  A Trust is a proposed solution, 
> not a "rationale"
> >
> >> I also think that characterizing it as we are tending toward the 
> IETF Trust
> >> becasue no one offered another solution is also slightly off the mark.
> > I said no one offered a _better_ alternative. Creating a new 
> Trust is something I thought we all recognized as possible, but not 
> desirable, because of the time involved in creating and designing 
> it, and the risks of creating something new when we cannot know 
> much about how it will actually work.
> >
> >> have suggested a new trust, but on the possibility that an 
> existing trust might
> >> be able to satisfy the requirents Names might have, we are holding off on
> >> trying to design that new trust.
> > That's a more accurate assessment of where we are. Still, I would 
> not say we are "holding off;" I would say that if an existing trust 
> can satisfy the requirements, perhaps with some modifications, all 
> the comments I have seen indicate that CWG is strongly inclined to 
> go with an existing Trust, namely IETF Trust. I haven't detected 
> any appetite here for opening up a new process to start a new trust 
> unless we absolutely have to. And if the IETF Trust can be adjusted 
> to serve this purpose, we won't have to. The legal analysis was 
> pretty negative about creating a new trust.
> >
> >> If we provide a rationale, that is what I would suggest we say.
> > Sorry, you are missing the point about what the rationale is for. 
> A rationale is not the proposed solution, it is a statement of the 
> problem we need a solution for.  The rationale that Greg objected 
> to was that the trademarks and domains should facilitate 
> nondiscriminatory use; i.e., the rationale is about separability.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship