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

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

I don't think any one person can be in a position to hold up this process.
This is the end result of an exhaustive (and exhausting) multistakeholder
process.  We put in months (really, years) of thorough and well-considered
work on the IPR issues alone.  This involved a significant group of
stakeholders (in this case, across the names, protocol parameters and
numbers communities).  The result of this work has been put through the
public comment process, and fully agreed and brought to conclusion with the
broad support of diverse stakeholders.

It would make a mockery of the multistakeholder process to allow any one
person to hold up implementation at this point, when the work is done.

In working groups, we do try to be open to questions and opinions from all
angles, sometimes to a fault.  This is especially true early on, when it's
important to consider all viewpoints.  But we are far, far past that point.
Our decisions have been  made.  Our commitments are clear.  It's time to
get it done.

Greg




On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160925/d275651e/attachment.html>