Hi, This is also just me speaking for myself. On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:43:51PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
understanding. The CRISP proposal does not form any kind of "status quo." Indeed, the "status quo" is that ICANN owns the trademarks and domain names.
That seems like a bizarre argument to me, since the _status quo_ is also that the NTIA is involved and all that entails. What we are supposed to be doing, however, is ensuring that the overall system changes as little as practical on the grounds that that is better for overall stability. It is plain that the changes that will be most important have to be contractual and legal, since what is actually disappearing is a legal party rather than one that is involved in the direct operation of anything. Another operational community has argued cogently about the operational risks associated with leaving the trademarks and domain names where they are, and therefore proposed an alternative. This maintains the operational _status quo_ at the cost of the legal/contractual _status quo_, which seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing we're supposed to be doing.
Although the RFP asked us to maintain the status quo unless there specific, well-explained reasons not to, I think that the CWG should approach this question with an open mind, without giving weight to either the status quo or the CRISP proposal.
I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence to mean something other than, "I know what our task was, but I think we should do something else instead." Presumably that's not what you meant. Could you say what you did mean? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com