Milton,

Of course, I'm serious.  I don't believe we discussed this statement much if at all -- "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  There was a fair amount of discussion of separability concerns (though not any decision to adopt that as a rationale), i.e., fears that ICANN would not transfer or allow use of the trademarks and domain names to a new IFO chosen by an operational community.  However, I don't read the quoted clause to refers to issues of separation and separability -- it refers to how the assets will be used.  And I don't think we ever discussed the meaning or import of this clause, much less adopted it as a rationale.  For instance, we've never discussed what "use in a non-discriminatory manner" means.

I don't think we came to any consensus on this list on a rationale, only on support for the "minimum requirement" that the trademarks and domain names be transferred to a party other than the IFO.

I think that Avri and Alan reflect more accurately the reason for our non-objection -- it was a pragmatic decision, essentially "going along to get along" (and to move along).

There's no need to inject any other rationale than that, and in any case, we have no consensus rationale to inject.

Greg

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

 

 

 

I don't think it's necessary to express a rationale for our decision; it's sufficient to say that we do not object.  Therefore, I would delete the phrase "in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community."  If we feel it's necessary to express a rationale, I don't think we discussed this particular rationale much, if at all, and re-opening our discussions to agree on a statement of rationale is going to take time we don't need to take and don't really have.

 

MM: Greg, seriously? You don’t think we discussed this very much??? I think we have discussed it repeatedly and at length. Your statement is prima facie inaccurate as anyone who has followed this list knows. We discussed extensively whether an incumbent IFO could be trusted to transfer the assets to a competitor, we discussed what the RIRs meant by that, and we discussed whether IETF Trust would be accountable to the names community, which is a derivative of this issue.

 

I think on this list we did come to rough consensus on that rationale, with you clearly being in the rough, although there was not agreement on the IETF Trust as everyone’s first choice, there was no better alternative floated. So Jonathan’s formulation did not mention the trust.  In that respect, I support Jonathan’s message and think it bends over backwards to accommodate your minority position.

 

I agree however with your accuracy improvements regarding IPR vs. trademarks/domains and pluralization of trademarks and domains.