[CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jun 13 18:47:29 UTC 2015


Why would it be any more advantageous to move to PTI than leaving it where
it is currently is? As already mentioned on other list, I don't see any
sensible reason for doing that, hence I disagree; PTI is not independent of
ICANN neither is it a known and tested entity as at today. As far as our
proposal is concerned PTI is a glorified ICANN department and I don't think
dealing with the child would be more assuring than dealing directly with
the parent.

However there has been indication that there may be a future with divided
IFO by communities, and continued access to the trademarks/domain as
present would need to be ensured. This is the only reason I would support
moving it to IETF trust especially if we don't think those requirement can
be legally ensured with the current owner.


sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Jun 2015 18:45, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> I believe that I support the principle of separability as much as most.
> That is why I believe  the intellectual property and the domain name
> should remain with the only organization whch will have repsonsiblities
> to all the communities (albeit some indirectly thought the parent
> company), i.e., PTI.
> I just do not see any sense in turning it over to a trust that has
> fiduciary responsibility to the IETF solely.
> avri
> On 13-Jun-15 12:06, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> -----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
> >> context.
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> >
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150613/74a9cb49/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list