[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

Of course, I'm serious.  I don't believe we discussed this statement much
if at all -- "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a
non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  There
was a fair amount of discussion of separability concerns (though not any
decision to adopt that as a rationale), i.e., fears that ICANN would not
transfer or allow use of the trademarks and domain names to a new IFO
chosen by an operational community.  However, I don't read the quoted
clause to refers to issues of separation and separability -- it refers to
how the assets will be used.  And I don't think we ever discussed the
meaning or import of this clause, much less adopted it as a rationale.  For
instance, we've never discussed what "use in a non-discriminatory manner"
means.

I don't think we came to any consensus on this list on a rationale, only on
support for the "minimum requirement" that the trademarks and domain names
be transferred to a party other than the IFO.

I think that Avri and Alan reflect more accurately the reason for our
non-objection -- it was a pragmatic decision, essentially "going along to
get along" (and to move along).

There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case,
we have no consensus rationale to inject.

Greg

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision; it's
> sufficient to say that we do not object.  Therefore, I would delete the
> phrase "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a
> non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  If
> we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we discussed
> this particular rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our discussions
> to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we don't need to
> take and don't really have.
>
>
>
> MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I
> think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is
> prima facie inaccurate as anyone who has followed this list knows. We
> discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer
> the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and
> we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the names
> community, which is a derivative of this issue.
>
>
>
> I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale,
> with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on
> the IETF Trust as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative
> floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust.  In that
> respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to
> accommodate your minority position.
>
>
>
> I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs.
> trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150827/75bb4ab6/attachment.html>