[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Greg Shatan]

I don't see the relationship you offer.  The CRISP rationale refers to
non-discriminatory use, whatever that means, not non-discriminatory
transfer.  In any event, we never discussed this statement, much less the
relationship between the statement and separability.

I think Jonathan was just trying to work with the CRISP verbiage when he
drafted the statement, which accounts for the reference to the Numbering
Services Operator and to this non-discriminatory use clause.  In both
cases, they do not reflect the thinking of our community and should be
dropped, so we can move on.  Insistance on including this unexplored clause
would be a filibuster and a distortion of the basis for the CWG's
non-objection to the minimum requirement.

Greg

Greg

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>
> We did not come to consensus on a particular rationale.  To the extent we
> discussed one, we spent most of the time discussing separability concerns,
> i.e., that ICANN would not relinquish use and/or ownership of the
> trademarks and domain names in the event one or more operational
> communities chose a different IANA operator.
>
>
>
> MM: Separability concerns are closely related to nondiscriminatory use.
> When would discrimination become an issue? Only when or if there is a
> change in IFO away from ICANN.
>
>
>
> This is consistent with the protocol parameter community's "non-objection"
> stance as well.
>
>
>
> MM: The protocol community asked all parties to acknowledge that the
> protocol parameter registries are in the public domain, and that ICANN
> would cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The NTIA IFO contract does
> not recognize trademarks and domains as a potential obstacle to a smooth
> transition, but this is an oversight rather than an implication that they
> are not.
>
>
>
> If we want to discuss the substance of this rationale and the other
> rationale offered by the Numbers community, we can do so, and I'll make my
> opinions known.  But I don't think it is necessary for us to respond to the
> ICG, and there's no need for us to do more than necessary.
>
>
>
> MM: I think this is a filibuster.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150827/cb920225/attachment-0001.html>