[CWG-Stewardship] Design team list

Mon Mar 2 17:38:49 UTC 2015

Hello Milton,

It's interesting to note that that the community that would most likely be
least affected by the domain/trademark relating to IANA happens to be the
one that rekindled this discussion ;-)

That said, I think this particular DT as proposed is independent of any
structural outcome of the CWG and would fit in accordingly just like the
typical SLA DT would fit in.

In terms of what to discuss, I guess the DT would mainly be discussing
whether "IETF trust" is an acceptable home for the trademark/domain that
would always allow them open access irrespective of whether the CWG
proposes external structural separation or not.

So I think there is indeed something to discuss and does not need to wait
until the cwg decides on it's structural formation.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 2 Mar 2015 16:09, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Greg:
>
> I am not sure I agree with John Poole that Design Team G forecloses any
> particular model, but I do think there is a tension between advancing work
> on some of these teams and the unresolved issues related to structural
> models, so I don’t think John is completely out of line in bringing this
> up.
>
>
>
> In particular, the issue of prematurity concerns me. I am not sure what
> DT-G can productively say about this issue until and unless we know what
> structural model we are proposing.
>
>
>
> I spent a lot of time on the IETF IANAPLAN WG debating this issue, and
> then watched it get brought back to life by the numbers proposal. And I of
> course participated in the ICG attempt to ensure that the two proposals
> were compatible in that regard. So I am fairly conversant with the ins and
> outs of this issue.
>
>
>
> The purpose of the proposed transfer of the trademark and domain, as the
> numbers proposal puts it very clearly, is to ensure that those assets are
> independent of any specific IANA functions operator. Thus, the numbers and
> protocols proposals are based on a contracting/separability structure.
> Should the names CWG decide that it does not want a similar structure, then
> we will definitely have something to discuss about our proposal’s
> compatibility with the other two proposals. If the names CWG decides that
> it does want to rely on a contracting/separability model, then we will also
> have some definite issues to discuss concerning the IETF Trust as the
> repository for the assets. But until we know which way we are going, I
> simply do not understand what the DT-G is going to discuss. And I am afraid
> your message below did not answer those questions.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 1, 2015 8:04 PM
> *To:* John Poole
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list
>
>
>
> 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/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150302/d2a7ec64/attachment-0001.html>