[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

[CW Lists]

+1	CW

PS:	Please see my comments at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15/msg00027.html

Regarding 'separation(s)', <<Remedial action would have to be taken long before the whole process
of separation, as described, could take effect. Therefore I rather doubt the necessity or wisdom of
making structural changes now, to deal with a doomsday scenario that cannot be allowed to
materialise, ever.>>

PPS: what is this 'drift'? Is that a typo for 'draft'?



On 11 Jun 2015, at 19:37, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 04:53:56PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> ICANN/PTI is an IFO. And that is central to the controversy.  Both
>> the IETF and the CRISP team wanted the marks separate from ICANN
>> because ICANN is an IFO and they did not want a specific IFO to own
>> those marks.
> 
> The IETF did _not_ want "the marks separate from ICANN".  The IETF's
> consensus was clearly that it didn't need that.  Later, it became
> clear that nobody would object if others wanted the IETF Trust to hold
> things.
> 
> Some of us think that the disposition of the mark and domain name
> doesn't matter, because there are in effect only two possibilities for
> separation.  In the event of a friendly separation in which all
> parties are co-operating, then the right redirections will be added (at
> the http level, for instance) for the relevant resources, and there
> won't be any operational problem.  On the other hand, in the event of
> a contested separation, there is no reason at all to suppose that a
> legal agreement would be helpful: the incumbent operator would contest
> the change, regardless of who had control of the resource, and the
> remedies would have to be pursued via the law.  That would be too slow
> to be practical, so the relevant operational community would have to
> make an emergency change anyway.  It would be extremely disruptive no
> matter what the outcome, and so the emergency change would be
> effectively a permanent one.  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150611/68718efa/attachment.html>