[CWG-Stewardship] Design team list

[Greg Shatan]

John,

I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and
also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed
models."

First, Design Team G is anything but premature.  The ICG, the numbers
community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all
moving the trademark/domain name train down the track.  Numbers proposed
it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the
IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP.  On their
last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further
consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's
position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do).  Perhaps this
is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger
world.  Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position
to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down.  (It may be
that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design
team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to
act.  And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to
shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since
they may just be wasting their time.)

As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a
reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine
the issue for our own purposes.  However, I think that such an examination
is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of
recommending how to react to the  proposal.  I would be happy to clarify
this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in
language on the DT proposal to clarify this.

I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision of
the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of
Design Team G."  There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not
take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain
name.  The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely
aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with
it) (see below).

As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through
the lens of the "proposed models."  Indeed, our current work plan seems
intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my
opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater
clarity on the models).  On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper
home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some
yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails.  To my mind, it's
actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the
domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in
the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co.
model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN.
A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models.

However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law
and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and
should be vetted with other members of the CWG.  Hence the call for the
Design Team.

I hope that clears things up.

Greg

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:

> Lise and Jonathan:
> I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>),
> my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA
> Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*,
> in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such
> property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and
> intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose
> beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community.
>
> The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious
> conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as
> proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of
> CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead,
> proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already
> submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the
> apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with
> in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c)
> internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated.
>
> Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it
> appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of
> responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has
> already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even
> developed and submitted its own proposal?
>
> I therefore object to proposed Design Team G
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G>
> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature.
>
> Best regards,
> John Poole
>
> ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working
> days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or
> suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response
> to the DT proposal*
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available
>> on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated.
>> Best regards,
>> Jonathan & Lise
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>


-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150301/258b1945/attachment.html>