[client com] Reply to Sidley Comments on Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

[Greg Shatan]

Josh,

Attached please find a chart setting out the key issues raised by Sidley,
along with proposed responses, comments and questions prepared by the
Client Committee.  We look forwarding to discussing these with you on the
call scheduled for Thursday.  If you have any questions in the interim,
please do not hesitate to reply to this email.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com>
wrote:

> Dear Client Committee,
>
>
>
> Attached please find Sidley comments to the Proposed Principal Terms for
> the IPR-related Agreements, clean and marked against the draft received in
> the prior email on May 20.  For your convenience, we also re-attach a copy
> of an August 15 memo that Sidley prepared for CWG regarding IANA IPR, which
> is referenced in our comments.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions or would like to
> discuss further.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> *Joshua Hofheimer*
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>
> *jhofheimer at sidley.com <jhofheimer at sidley.com>*
>
> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
>
> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
>
> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 20, 2016 9:23 AM
> *To:* Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> *Cc:* Client
> *Subject:* Fwd: Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property
> Agreements
>
>
>
> Sidley Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Attached please find "Proposed Principal Terms for the IPR-related
> Agreements" for your review and comment.  This has been certified by the
> CWG.  This is currently under review by counsel for the numbers and
> protocols communities.  Since their review began some time ago, a prompt
> (but not rushed) review would be greatly appreciated.  Please let us know
> if you have any questions regarding the attached or the note below.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:09 AM
> Subject: Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements
> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I've attached the current draft of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA
> Intellectual Property Agreements.  This is the "stable" draft which has now
> been in existence for a few weeks.  The other two communities have passed
> this document on to their counsel for review and comment.  The intention is
> to certify this document to Sidley for review and comment, assuming the CWG
> approves that action on today's call.
>
>
>
> In addition to the attached document, two subsequent suggestions were made
> in the coordination group that prepared this document.  The intention is to
> pass these along to Sidley as well.  The suggestions, and my reactions, are
> set out below.
>
>
>
> First in the bit about the registration rules for iana.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__iana.org_&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=PyftdYkqjEDMIx5o_kyQ1bCTTkOV655ea67oiCGUI9M&m=AVC4yUCgXaUprZ_LifbJYjApzlNDFaliVQIUU9Ipcl4&s=IDCcQA7OV9lPFKOhAjsIbfc5bmc7p2MSFFD009Hr6Zc&e=>
>  and
> friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever
> it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're
> talking about are status values in the shared registration system --
> clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and
> clientTransferProhibited.  I think this is just a clarification, and
> no big deal.
>
>
>
> >Agree.
>
> A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested
> that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting,
> and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other
> decision-making processes they use.  A suggestion in the room was that
> the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a
> majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of
> the communities must be present for quorum.  I think this is a good
> principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no
> making up rules when a decision is needed).  Does anyone object?  Does
> it seem reasonable?
>
>
>
> >Overall, this seems sensible.  On CCG procedures, we may want to have a
> "charter" for the group, although there may be other ways to ensure that
> rules are in place.  As such, how we put those rules in place should be
> kept general (i.e., not so specific as 'publish at its first meeting').
> However, the point on quorum is one where we might want to be specific now
> -- this echoes discussions we've been having about quorum and decisions
> making in the CSC oversight group for IANA functions.  I think a majority
> with at least one rep from each community is a pretty reasonable "floor"
> for quorum requirements and one I have no trouble supporting at this
> point.  Of course, this and many other details will get resolved when we
> move from this "term sheet" stage to "definitive documentation."  What's
> most important now is to keep moving toward that stage.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160704/b0e63d9c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Key Issues in Sidley Comments on Principal IPR Terms remrks MS.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30492 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160704/b0e63d9c/KeyIssuesinSidleyCommentsonPrincipalIPRTermsremrksMS-0001.docx>