[CRISP-TEAM] [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Mwendwa Kivuva wrote on 10/08/15 07:58:
> 
> On 10 August 2015 at 02:34, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net
> <mailto:woody at pch.net>> wrote:
> 
>     My take on it is the same as John’s.  We seem to be getting
>     railroaded by the Names’ folks interests, as was kinda predictable
>     that we would.  I guess the bottom line is that I don’t want any
>     objections from us to add to the delays they’ve already created, and
>     I’m willing to compromise on this issue as long as everyone is
>     _really clear_ that we can go our own way as soon as we like, so if
>     they screw this up, it won’t affect us long-term.
> 
> 
> We should also be prepared for the consequences of any compromise. For
> example, any compromise that goes against the CRISP proposal will
> have to go back to the community process and seek re-approval. From the
> SLA, it is clearly stated that ICANN is the IFO. So the community
> proposal is praying for the IPR to sit anywhere other than within ICANN.
> 

So, taking Sidley's advice at face value, scenarios 1 and 2 are clearly
incompatible with the numbers proposal, and the main downside of
scenario 3 (An independent trust, such as the IETF Trust) is that it
"will require the most effort to implement".

Well, if that is a strong argument against, we shouldn't have started
working on the transition in the first place!

If Sidle's analysis passes the IETF Trust legal review and they say it
is doable, I do not quite see a problem. I have not seen any objections
to the Trust option since January, and the ICG proposal does not
indicate them either. Unless we hear specific concerns we (and the
Trust) cannot address them.

Andrei