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

[Bill Woodcock]

As do I.  If the path that is in conformance with Numbers and Protocols is work, then work is to be done.  If there’s a problem, then the problem should be identified and addressed.  In the absence of any identified problem, there’s no reasonable path forward that is not in compliance with Numbers and Protocols.


> On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> 
> 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>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 Johnąs.  We seem to be getting
>>>    railroaded by the Namesą folks interests, as was kinda predictable
>>>    that we would.  I guess the bottom line is that I donąt want any
>>>    objections from us to add to the delays theyąve already created, and
>>>    Iąm 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 wonąt 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 
> 
> 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.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150810/aa21e1e6/signature.asc>