[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

[Greg Shatan]

Chuck,

I would be fine with that as well, and in a way it is the most appropriate,
since it reflects what we actually need to do.

Nice suggestion.

Greg

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  How about a 5th option that is similar to what we are doing for DT-A,
> i.e., leave an action item to resolve in collaboration with the other two
> communities prior to sending to the ICG is that is possible.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:47 PM
> *To:* Alissa Cooper
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
>
>
>
> ​
> This is going to the SOs and ACs tomorrow.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure what "fixing" this means, since I don't consider the current
> position (ICANN retains the trademarks) "broken."  Rather, I think the
> proposal to move the trademarks to the IETF Trust to be "broken."  And we
> can't fix that.
>
>
>
> That said, I see the following options available:
>
>
>
> 1.  Leave the proposal as it is, with ICANN retaining the marks.
>
> 2.  Remove the language referring to the trademarks, so it is ambiguous
> (but implicit that the relevant assets moving to PTI would most
> likelyinclude the trademarks).
>
> 3.  Amend the language so it is explicit that the marks are being
> transferred to PTI.
>
> 4.  Conform the language so that the marks are transferred to the IETF
> Trust.
>
>
>
> I would support either option 1 or option 3.  I could live with option 2,
> since it takes us back to prior versions, and leaves room for clarification
> down the road.  I would object only to option 4, for the reasons previously
> stated.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
> ​
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
> In my opinion it would be preferable to get this fixed before the proposal
> goes out to the SOs and ACs for approval rather than waiting for the ICG to
> triage it, if possible.
>
> Alissa
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> > If what Bill says is true about the marks staying with ICANN, the CWG
> should change its draft to make the IETF trust the holder of the IANA
> trademarks and domains rather than PTI. This not only makes it compatible
> with the numbers proposal, but contributes to the principle of
> separability. One particular IFO should not "own" trademarks and domains
> for IANA; instead they should be held in trust by a neutral entity. If a
> specific IFO holds those marks for IANA it constitutes a serious switching
> cost and could cause confusion.
> >
> > The CWG draft that "drifts" away from the protocols and numbers
> proposals seems to be inadvertent rather than deliberate, or at least I
> hope so. At any rate if we don't fix it here the ICG will have to deal with
> it during their process of reviewing incompatibilities between the three
> operational communities' proposals.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> >> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of manning
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:12 AM
> >> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> >> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback
> >> regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see
> >> attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments).
> >>
> >> Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came
> out
> >> yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction,
> >> leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust?
> >>
> >> CWG email re new draft - -<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-
> >> stewardship/2015-June/003650.html>
> >> Draft Document - <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-
> >> stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e/FinalTransitionProposal_v5-
> >> Redline-commentsandeditsfordiscussion-0001.docx>
> >>
> >> Proposed text in most recent document -
> >>
> >>> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide
> >> license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all
> >> applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with
> PTI's
> >> activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. "
> >>
> >> this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would
> >> this make the ICG's job of aligning the various proposals from the
> affected
> >> parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult?
> >>
> >> It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction,
> >> without concurrence from the affected parties.
> >>
> >>
> >> manning
> >> bmanning at karoshi.com
> >> PO Box 12317
> >> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> >> 310.322.8102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150610/b31d1d0e/attachment-0001.html>