[CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.

[Mueller, Milton L]

I am not sure I understand why someone who clearly does not understand what is going on in the IPR transition process, and who actually never seemed to understand what IANA is, should be in a position to hold up this process. 

Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 18:45, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> As usual, I note that I am a trustee of the IETF Trust, and I do not
> wish anyone to understand that I am promoting any IETF or Trust
> interest here.  But I am concerned that we not delay the transition by
> organizational mmisunderstanding.  In particular,
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:03:43AM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
>> 2.    I understand that the CCG has been 'created' to regulate the relationships between the Naming Community and the IETF Trust, thus the interest in IPR.
> 
> I think it would be better to say that the CCG is being created to
> ensure that each operational community's interests are properly
> represented to the Trust, which will own the IPR.  The Trust is
> undertaking to manage this IPR according to the needs and wishes of
> the various communities, consistent with the Trust's responsibilities
> in respect of the IPR.
> 
>> 3.    The leap from the IETF Trust to directing ICANN - as indicated in the draft Letter of Instruction - has not been explained. As far as I can see, the small number of delegates to the CCG (Representatives and Co-Chairs, including apparently ourselves) have no mandate to direct ICANN about anything. What is the eventual scope of these instructions?
> 
> The scope -- which I believe is already completely outlined in the
> relevant documents for the IPR issues -- is to advise and direct the
> Trust about the appropriate use of the IPR for a given community's
> needs.  In the case of the names community, this necessarily involves
> instructing both ICANN and PTI about specific uses of the IANA
> trademarks and the iana.org domain name (and maybe some others, but
> iana.org is the bit one).
> 
>> 4.    I would agree to your suggestion that some tutorials might be in order. If so, these should take place well before anything is finalised, and after public consultation (see 1. above)
>>    Thus it is perhaps premature to demand that ICANN accept the draft Letter of Instructions.
> 
> In my opinion, claiming that this is "premature" suggests that the
> issues have not been completely vented in the CWG.  Given the amount
> of time that's already been spent on this issue, I am a little worried
> (not to say alarmed) at the suggestion that more time is needed.  The
> IPR transfer and the resulting arrangements for each community need in
> fact to be in place in a week, assuming the transition is to happen on
> schedule.  I don't really understand why there could be any confusion
> about this.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship