[client com] Notes from Client Committee call on 9 July

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all,

 

Client Committee Meeting - Proposed Agenda

1. Potential for assistance with near-term work on intellectual property - IANA trademarks & domain
names.

2. Potential assistance with or co-ordination of any ICANN bylaws related work such that the CCWG
Accountability work is sure to meet the requirement of the CWG Stewardship

3.  Considerations which will need to be given when contemplating any assistance (from Sidley) as
the CWG (or a successor group) role in implementation becomes clearer.

 

Notes 9/7 - Client Committee

 

1. Potential for assistance with near-term work on intellectual property - IANA trademarks & domain
names.

*        Topic also discussed in BA

*        Board recently sent clarification to ICG list (see
<http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html>
http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html)

*        How should CWG deal with this issue taking into account proposals from the other
communities? 

*        Board statement suggests that ICANN prefers to keep the mark but that right to use is given
to any future IANA operator

*        There appear to be three possible scenarios: stays with ICANN, goes to PTI, goes into trust
(IETF, mutual trust). Does CWG care? Would it work equally well with all three scenarios or is there
a difference? Sidley could potentially look at what the difference would be between these different
scenarios ensuring unrestricted use post-transition as well as post a possible separation, and what
impact it could have on the use of the trademark to allow CWG to decide whether or not it
should/needs to take a position (e.g. support IETF proposal or suggest an alternative). Also
consider contacting ICANN to obtain further information concerning how mark is currently used. 

*        Next steps to be further considered by CWG during its call later today. 

2. Potential assistance with or co-ordination of any ICANN bylaws related work such that the CCWG
Accountability work is sure to meet the requirement of the CWG Stewardship

*        Will bylaws be drafted by CCWG or CWG? Would CWG sign-off on work of CCWG or does CWG offer
a proposed draft?

*        Important to understand on which model the CCWG decides following the Paris meeting. 

*        Sidley: CWG should draft bylaws that are CWG specific, even though there is overlap between
the two groups and support provided by the legal times. Important to understand the context and
ensure that they meet the CWG needs. Further info on CCWG model will be necessary, but certain parts
can already be developed by CWG (for example, creation of PTI). Two sets of bylaws: those that
specifically relate to the work of the CCWG and those that specifically relate to the creation of
the new mechanisms as proposed by the CWG. Are there certain ones that would fall in between? May be
worth asking Sidley to  create a schedule / matrix to help determine where they belong?
CWG-Stewardship to further consider this during its meeting later today.

*        Are there any sensitivities around the CWG drafting bylaws? Probably not in relation to the
more 'technical' ones such as relating to PTI, IFR, etc. CCWG probably not willing/able to take on
those bylaws that relate only to mechanisms proposed by the CWG with no direct link to CCWG work.

*        Indicative costs for assistance from Sidley on development of a draft of the bylaws would
be needed. 

3.  Considerations which will need to be given when contemplating any assistance (from Sidley) as
the CWG (or a successor group) role in implementation becomes clearer.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150709/5949b9b6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150709/5949b9b6/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20150709/5949b9b6/smime-0001.p7s>