[CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

[Avri Doria]

Hi

Milton, sine you are insisting so much from a Names perspective that we
agree to transfer this from ICANN to the IETT Trust, I would like to
understand what advantage you see for the Names commuity in this from
the CWG perspective. I understand why you might take the position you do
as a member of the IANAPLAN WG or even as an ICG member (though you do
represent the GNSO/NCSG on the group), but I do not see what this does
for the CWG.

Also I think you misinterpret the IANAPLAN position.  They say they are
willing.  They do not request the move.

> > I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this. 
>
>  
>
> MM: I would insist on being on this team.
>
>  
>

And as you insist on being on this team, i will also insist on being on it.

avri


On 20-Jun-15 14:47, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Greg:
>
> Here  I am speaking as a CWG participant and not as an ICG member.
>
> Let me call to your attention that the ICG letter asks CWG to “review
> the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities”
> and then to “determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those
> communities.”
>
>  
>
> I suggest that we start with that. Is there anything preventing the
> CWG from quickly and easily resolving the incompatibility by simply
> going along with the proposal to turn the trademarks over to the IETF
> Trust as requested? Frankly I don’t think there is. No one has argued
> that there is any problem or harm to the names community hat would
> come from adhering to the CRISP proposal.
>
>  
>
> I was interested in this part of your response:
>
>  
>
> I also think we as a community need to decide what our /desired/
> outcome would be (whatever the facts are, and whatever the law may be
> (as long we recognize that a trademark identifies where the goods and
> services come from)). 
>
>  
>
> MM: This is a discussion that never happened the first time around. No
> one has ever explained how PTI or ICANN holding the trademarks
> accomplishes anything of value for the names community. On the
> contrary, it was pointed out by several people that the principle of
> separability is violated by having a specific IFO hold the trademark.
>
>  
>
> I suggest we put together an ad hoc team to deal with this. 
>
>  
>
> MM: I would insist on being on this team.
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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