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

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Mon Aug 10 15:29:19 CEST 2015

Agree with Andrei

On 8/10/15, 5:15 AM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Andrei
Robachevsky" <crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of robachevsky at isoc.org>

>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 John¹s.  We seem to be getting
>>     railroaded by the Names¹ folks interests, as was kinda predictable
>>     that we would.  I guess the bottom line is that I don¹t want any
>>     objections from us to add to the delays they¹ve already created, and
>>     I¹m 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 won¹t 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.
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the CRISP mailing list