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

[avri doria]

Hi,

I have gotten lost in this discussion.

Has all been completed on the letter?  Can ICANN sign if the transition
is freed to move ahead?

If not, what is missing?  I unfortunately missed the last meeting, but
am amazed at the confusion that came out of that meeting.

thanks

avri


On 25-Sep-16 01:58, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://iana.org> domain name (and
>     maybe some others, but
>     > iana.org <http://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 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
>     _______________________________________________
>     CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>     CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>     <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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus