[CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

All,

 

Confirmed, the intent here was to use the EXACT wording from the CRISP response with the primary motivation to ensure coherence between the respective positions, but an obvious benefit was also to avoid the need for substantial discussion of the nuances of the CWG position.

 

It now seems clear that we may need a fix to the draft language which retains both consistency with the CRISP proposal and the integrity of the CWG position to date. Lise and I can work on that based on the feedback received.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] 
Sent: 27 August 2015 15:34
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
Cc: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG Position on IANA IPR

 

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 <mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> > wrote:

 

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com <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/20150827/9016bc55/attachment-0001.html>