[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

[Jari Arkko]

First, I support the way forward as concluded by the chairs. It is important
for the CWG work to move to the next step.

Anyway, I would like to emphasise that we are in this together. The
three communities need to work together to have an acceptable solution
for all. I’m happy to help on this issue as needed, as I am sure are others.
And even the solution needs to be seen as not one entity controlling the others,
but a shared arrangement where all of us feel comfortable that we have
the necessary ability to conduct our business.

We have provided an offer from the IETF Trust to help if needed*. We
are an existing entity with a stable and known history, and willingness
to support the communities with that shared arrangement.

Finally, I think it is important that the current language be changed as
we move forward from the “initial draft language” to something more
realistic. It is important to realise that all of us in the different communities
use the terms, for instance, in 3351 IETF RFCs dating back three decades.
It is very important that PTI gets the rights it needs, but on quick look,
the “exclusive license” text does not seem to take into account the
broader view of use of the domains and terms outside PTI.

Jari

*) We do not require an arrangement, but would be happy to participate
in one. And obviously, we do not want to see an arrangement that
would cause problems for us or the other communities.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150612/ae5c70dd/signature.asc>