[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sat Jun 13 16:06:50 UTC 2015
> -----Original Message-----
> As for the
> supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting
> separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support
> separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own
This strikes me as a purely rhetorical retort with no substantive content.
Separability is not a "tail" but a fundamental accountability mechanism and it is unclear what you think the "dog" is here.
You'd need to explain how PTI owning something rather than just using it is more important than separability, and you haven't done that.
> (As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make
> separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that
> the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was
> relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.)
This is really, really unpersuasive. You're saying it would be easier to take the marks away from an entity that owns them than it would be for a higher-level entity (IETF Trust) to shift their use from one IFO to another. Sorry, not buying that.
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another. This means that the IPR associated with IANA needs to be held in a place that is independent of any IFO. I think that's what it means to the other operational communities too.
More information about the CWG-Stewardship