Hi, Why would it be any more advantageous to move to PTI than leaving it where it is currently is? As already mentioned on other list, I don't see any sensible reason for doing that, hence I disagree; PTI is not independent of ICANN neither is it a known and tested entity as at today. As far as our proposal is concerned PTI is a glorified ICANN department and I don't think dealing with the child would be more assuring than dealing directly with the parent. However there has been indication that there may be a future with divided IFO by communities, and continued access to the trademarks/domain as present would need to be ensured. This is the only reason I would support moving it to IETF trust especially if we don't think those requirement can be legally ensured with the current owner. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Jun 2015 18:45, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I believe that I support the principle of separability as much as most. That is why I believe the intellectual property and the domain name should remain with the only organization whch will have repsonsiblities to all the communities (albeit some indirectly thought the parent company), i.e., PTI.
I just do not see any sense in turning it over to a trust that has fiduciary responsibility to the IETF solely.
avri
On 13-Jun-15 12:06, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message----- As for the supposed contradiction you cite, first, I think this is letting separability be the tail that wags the dog. I generally support separability, but it doesn't trump looking at an issue in its own context. This strikes me as a purely rhetorical retort with no substantive content. Separability is not a "tail" but a fundamental accountability mechanism and it is unclear what you think the "dog" is here. You'd need to explain how PTI owning something rather than just using it is more important than separability, and you haven't done that.
(As previously noted, having PTI own the mark might make separability slightly easier, since it would be with other assets that the next IFO would need to receive in a scenario where PTI was relieved of its duties in favor of a third party.) This is really, really unpersuasive. You're saying it would be easier to take the marks away from an entity that owns them than it would be for a higher-level entity (IETF Trust) to shift their use from one IFO to another. Sorry, not buying that.
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another. This means that the IPR associated with IANA needs to be held in a place that is independent of any IFO. I think that's what it means to the other operational communities too.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship