[CWG-Stewardship] Letter of instruction from the CWG to ICANN regarding the IANA IPR Community Agreement.
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Sep 25 19:09:11 UTC 2016
Hello,
1. While ICANN agreed to sign "on behalf" I don't think they have agreed to
sign "on behalf" as per the text in the letter. However it seem Greg is now
confirming that ICANN has indeed agreed to the terms for signing "on
behalf" which is good to know.
2. There is really nothing wrong with raising observations and all that we
should do is provide clarification. It doesn't have to degenerate to imply
incompetence of the person asking/raising an opinion.
3. I earlier raised an observation about the inclusion of the following
"...hereafter affirm in writing..." and I suggested that section wasn't
necessary. Since it is included, I hope a letter/note has also been sent to
the CO to provide their affirmation in writing.
4. I don't know how this letter is binding on anyone especially as it's
been signed by CWG and not by COs who are in turn members of EC. However, i
would only just hope that since/if ICANN agree then both sides will keep to
terms.
For avoidance of doubt, None of the above implies delaying this process by
any means.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 25 Sep 2016 7:02 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
Avri,
It's certainly my understanding that all has been completed on the letter
and that ICANN can sign it.
There is nothing missing. There is one non-substantive change suggested by
Chuck Gomes that could be made, which would slightly improve the
readability of the letter (spelling out "Community Coordination Group" the
first time it is used, instead of saying "CCG"). Whether or not this is
done, the letter is ready to be signed.
I don't think any significant confusion came out of the meeting itself.
After the meeting, one participant (who appears not to have kept up with
the CWG's work) started an exchange on this thread raising a number of 12th
hour objections. This exchange may have created an appearance of more
general confusion. The confusion is actually quite isolated, as far as I
can tell. Andrew Sullivan and I both responded with explanations, which I
thought cleared up any confusion on the very minor subject of this "letter
of instruction." The high-level explanation is this:
The "Names Community" is a party to the Community Agreement (relating to
the IANA IPR). The Names Community needs a legal entity to sign the
Agreement on its behalf, because there is no existing legal entity that
encompasses the Names Community. ICANN was asked if it could perform the
limited function of signing on behalf of the Names Community. ICANN said
that it could. The "Letter of Instruction" formally instructs ICANN to
sign on behalf of the Names Community and sets out the parameters of
ICANN's limited role as signatory. This is needed because signing the
Agreement without any explanation makes it look like ICANN has full
authority and discretion to act as the Names Community under the Agreement.
The rest of the discussion turned to the effects (if any) of this
confusion, both on implementing our work and on the composition of the CCG.
In my view, this confusion has absolutely no effect on implementing our
work. If working group results could be undone after the fact by a single
confused participant, ICANN probably would not even exist.
Greg
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, avri doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e7092bcb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list