Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*, in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community. The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated. Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal? I therefore object to proposed Design Team G <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature. Best regards, John Poole ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal* On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
John, I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed models." First, Design Team G is anything but premature. The ICG, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all moving the trademark/domain name train down the track. Numbers proposed it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP. On their last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do). Perhaps this is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger world. Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down. (It may be that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to act. And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since they may just be wasting their time.) As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine the issue for our own purposes. However, I think that such an examination is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of recommending how to react to the proposal. I would be happy to clarify this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in language on the DT proposal to clarify this. I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G." There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain name. The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with it) (see below). As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through the lens of the "proposed models." Indeed, our current work plan seems intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater clarity on the models). On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails. To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models. However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and should be vetted with other members of the CWG. Hence the call for the Design Team. I hope that clears things up. Greg On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*, in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community.
The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated.
Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal?
I therefore object to proposed Design Team G <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature.
Best regards, John Poole
ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal*
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Greg, Thanks for the quick reply which helped clarify the purpose of Design Team G. When I said "premature" I meant in the same context as your statement that "perhaps this is premature 'in the CWG bubble,'" which frankly, is my sole focus. I know you and others are involved in other processes and keeping a close eye on the broader process which is a good thing--I thank you and the others for being watchful and diligent. I agree 100% with your statement: *"To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models."* Remember I am not an "ICANN insider" so I will defer to your and Jonathan's and Lise's wise judgment on how to best proceed on this--perhaps even the formality of a design team can be dispensed with--it sounds like you need to move quickly "to slow the train down." If so, do whatever is necessary to stop that* runaway train!* Best regards, John Poole On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed models."
First, Design Team G is anything but premature. The ICG, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all moving the trademark/domain name train down the track. Numbers proposed it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP. On their last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do). Perhaps this is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger world. Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down. (It may be that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to act. And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since they may just be wasting their time.)
As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine the issue for our own purposes. However, I think that such an examination is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of recommending how to react to the proposal. I would be happy to clarify this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in language on the DT proposal to clarify this.
I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G." There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain name. The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with it) (see below).
As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through the lens of the "proposed models." Indeed, our current work plan seems intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater clarity on the models). On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails. To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models.
However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and should be vetted with other members of the CWG. Hence the call for the Design Team.
I hope that clears things up.
Greg
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*, in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community.
The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated.
Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal?
I therefore object to proposed Design Team G <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature.
Best regards, John Poole
ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal*
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
Greg: I am not sure I agree with John Poole that Design Team G forecloses any particular model, but I do think there is a tension between advancing work on some of these teams and the unresolved issues related to structural models, so I don’t think John is completely out of line in bringing this up. In particular, the issue of prematurity concerns me. I am not sure what DT-G can productively say about this issue until and unless we know what structural model we are proposing. I spent a lot of time on the IETF IANAPLAN WG debating this issue, and then watched it get brought back to life by the numbers proposal. And I of course participated in the ICG attempt to ensure that the two proposals were compatible in that regard. So I am fairly conversant with the ins and outs of this issue. The purpose of the proposed transfer of the trademark and domain, as the numbers proposal puts it very clearly, is to ensure that those assets are independent of any specific IANA functions operator. Thus, the numbers and protocols proposals are based on a contracting/separability structure. Should the names CWG decide that it does not want a similar structure, then we will definitely have something to discuss about our proposal’s compatibility with the other two proposals. If the names CWG decides that it does want to rely on a contracting/separability model, then we will also have some definite issues to discuss concerning the IETF Trust as the repository for the assets. But until we know which way we are going, I simply do not understand what the DT-G is going to discuss. And I am afraid your message below did not answer those questions. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2015 8:04 PM To: John Poole Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list John, I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed models." First, Design Team G is anything but premature. The ICG, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all moving the trademark/domain name train down the track. Numbers proposed it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP. On their last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do). Perhaps this is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger world. Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down. (It may be that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to act. And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since they may just be wasting their time.) As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine the issue for our own purposes. However, I think that such an examination is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of recommending how to react to the proposal. I would be happy to clarify this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in language on the DT proposal to clarify this. I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G." There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain name. The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with it) (see below). As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through the lens of the "proposed models." Indeed, our current work plan seems intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater clarity on the models). On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails. To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models. However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and should be vetted with other members of the CWG. Hence the call for the Design Team. I hope that clears things up. Greg On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com<mailto:jp1@expri.com>> wrote: Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name, in that the proposed External Trust Model provides that all such property ("iana.org<http://iana.org>"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community. The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does not even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team to respond to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated. Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, before CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal? I therefore object to proposed Design Team G<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature. Best regards, John Poole ref. Step 4 - Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> wrote: Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/>
Hello Milton, It's interesting to note that that the community that would most likely be least affected by the domain/trademark relating to IANA happens to be the one that rekindled this discussion ;-) That said, I think this particular DT as proposed is independent of any structural outcome of the CWG and would fit in accordingly just like the typical SLA DT would fit in. In terms of what to discuss, I guess the DT would mainly be discussing whether "IETF trust" is an acceptable home for the trademark/domain that would always allow them open access irrespective of whether the CWG proposes external structural separation or not. So I think there is indeed something to discuss and does not need to wait until the cwg decides on it's structural formation. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 Mar 2015 16:09, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Greg:
I am not sure I agree with John Poole that Design Team G forecloses any particular model, but I do think there is a tension between advancing work on some of these teams and the unresolved issues related to structural models, so I don’t think John is completely out of line in bringing this up.
In particular, the issue of prematurity concerns me. I am not sure what DT-G can productively say about this issue until and unless we know what structural model we are proposing.
I spent a lot of time on the IETF IANAPLAN WG debating this issue, and then watched it get brought back to life by the numbers proposal. And I of course participated in the ICG attempt to ensure that the two proposals were compatible in that regard. So I am fairly conversant with the ins and outs of this issue.
The purpose of the proposed transfer of the trademark and domain, as the numbers proposal puts it very clearly, is to ensure that those assets are independent of any specific IANA functions operator. Thus, the numbers and protocols proposals are based on a contracting/separability structure. Should the names CWG decide that it does not want a similar structure, then we will definitely have something to discuss about our proposal’s compatibility with the other two proposals. If the names CWG decides that it does want to rely on a contracting/separability model, then we will also have some definite issues to discuss concerning the IETF Trust as the repository for the assets. But until we know which way we are going, I simply do not understand what the DT-G is going to discuss. And I am afraid your message below did not answer those questions.
--MM
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Sunday, March 1, 2015 8:04 PM *To:* John Poole *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Design team list
John,
I think you have misunderstood the scope and purpose of Design Team G, and also the current status (and even the original intent) of the "proposed models."
First, Design Team G is anything but premature. The ICG, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community and the IETF itself are all moving the trademark/domain name train down the track. Numbers proposed it, protocol parameters stated it did not conflict with their proposal, the IETF stated they would be happy to be the "host" for this IP. On their last call, the ICG seemed very interested in giving this proposal further consideration right now, given the non-objection by protocols and IETF's position (perhaps because they don't have that much to do). Perhaps this is premature in the "CWG bubble." but it's not premature in the larger world. Part of the inspiration for the design team is to have a position to inject into the ICG's discussion and to slow the train down. (It may be that a design team is not needed for this, but if we don't use a design team, we'll need to use another vehicle to determine how the CWG wants to act. And we should act soon -- even if it is just to tell the ICG to shelve the discussion of this IP until our proposal is determined, since they may just be wasting their time.)
As for scope, I do agree that the description could be written less as a reaction to these activities, and more out of proactive desire to examine the issue for our own purposes. However, I think that such an examination is within the scope of the DT as proposed, as it would be part of recommending how to react to the proposal. I would be happy to clarify this aspect of the proposal, or to look at some suggested changes in language on the DT proposal to clarify this.
I must disagree explicitly with your statement that "The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G." There is no conflict, because the DT proposal does not take a position regarding the proper home of the trademark and domain name. The Design Team itself could, and it could well be completely aligned with the external Trust model (or at least be non-conflicting with it) (see below).
As for the proposed models -- we can't look at every issue solely through the lens of the "proposed models." Indeed, our current work plan seems intent to avoid using the models as defining factors for the issues (in my opinion, with the idea that resolution of issues can lead to much greater clarity on the models). On a conceptual basis, the criteria for the proper home of this IP can be determined without knowing which model (or some yet-unknown or hybrid model) ultimately prevails. To my mind, it's actually pretty simple -- the best place for the trademark (and thus the domain name) is the grantor/owner of the right to offer IANA services -- in the external trust model, it would be a trust asset; in the Contract Co. model, it would be Contract Co., in the internal models it would be ICANN. A third party owner doesn't make a lot of sense in any of our models.
However, my conclusions, even though founded in an understanding of IP law and the issues in our group (and outside), are probably not sufficient, and should be vetted with other members of the CWG. Hence the call for the Design Team.
I hope that clears things up.
Greg
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John Poole <jp1@expri.com> wrote:
Lise and Jonathan: I raise again (as I did in my email last Monday <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001891.html>), my same concerns in regard to the proposed *Design Team G - IANA Intellectual Property Rights, including the IANA Trademark and Domain Name*, in that the proposed *External Trust Model* provides that all such property ("iana.org"and other associated marks), and other tangible and intangible property, become property of the (external) Trust whose beneficial owner (equitable title) is the global multistakeholder community.
The above provision of the external Trust model presents an obvious conflict with the proposal of Design Team G. Further, Design Team G, as proposed, does *not* even purport to deal with any of the pending work of CWG-Stewardship or any component common to all 5 CWG models but, instead, proposes a Design Team *to respond* *to an aspect of a proposal already submitted to ICG by another community*--the Numbers Community--to the apparent exclusion of consideration of how that is, or may be, dealt with in any of CWG's 5 proposed models--(a) contract co; (b) external trust; (c) internal; (d) internal trust; (e) integrated.
Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of CWG "Design Teams." Is it appropriate to propose CWG "Design Teams" merely for the purpose of responding to another Community's (Numbers, Protocols) Proposal which has already been submitted to ICG, *before* CWG-Stewardship has even developed and submitted its own proposal?
I therefore object to proposed Design Team G <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Design+Teams+List#G> as: (1) out of scope; (2) premature.
Best regards,
John Poole
ref. Step 4 - *Co-Chairs of CWG to review proposal within two working days of receiving the proposal, taking into account any comments or suggestions that may have been received on the CWG mailing list in response to the DT proposal*
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
Dear all, Here is as requested the list of design teams. This will also be available on the website. We will ensure that the list continuously is updated. Best regards, Jonathan & Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
John Poole -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji