Chuck, I would be fine with that as well, and in a way it is the most appropriate, since it reflects what we actually need to do. Nice suggestion. Greg On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
How about a 5th option that is similar to what we are doing for DT-A, i.e., leave an action item to resolve in collaboration with the other two communities prior to sending to the ICG is that is possible.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:47 PM *To:* Alissa Cooper *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
This is going to the SOs and ACs tomorrow.
I'm not sure what "fixing" this means, since I don't consider the current position (ICANN retains the trademarks) "broken." Rather, I think the proposal to move the trademarks to the IETF Trust to be "broken." And we can't fix that.
That said, I see the following options available:
1. Leave the proposal as it is, with ICANN retaining the marks.
2. Remove the language referring to the trademarks, so it is ambiguous (but implicit that the relevant assets moving to PTI would most likelyinclude the trademarks).
3. Amend the language so it is explicit that the marks are being transferred to PTI.
4. Conform the language so that the marks are transferred to the IETF Trust.
I would support either option 1 or option 3. I could live with option 2, since it takes us back to prior versions, and leaves room for clarification down the road. I would object only to option 4, for the reasons previously stated.
Greg
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
In my opinion it would be preferable to get this fixed before the proposal goes out to the SOs and ACs for approval rather than waiting for the ICG to triage it, if possible.
Alissa
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
If what Bill says is true about the marks staying with ICANN, the CWG should change its draft to make the IETF trust the holder of the IANA trademarks and domains rather than PTI. This not only makes it compatible with the numbers proposal, but contributes to the principle of separability. One particular IFO should not "own" trademarks and domains for IANA; instead they should be held in trust by a neutral entity. If a specific IFO holds those marks for IANA it constitutes a serious switching cost and could cause confusion.
The CWG draft that "drifts" away from the protocols and numbers proposals seems to be inadvertent rather than deliberate, or at least I hope so. At any rate if we don't fix it here the ICG will have to deal with it during their process of reviewing incompatibilities between the three operational communities' proposals.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of manning Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:12 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments).
Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust?
CWG email re new draft - -<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg- stewardship/2015-June/003650.html> Draft Document - <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg- stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e/FinalTransitionProposal_v5- Redline-commentsandeditsfordiscussion-0001.docx>
Proposed text in most recent document -
" ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. "
this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would this make the ICG's job of aligning the various proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult?
It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties.
manning bmanning@karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship