[client com] Revised Sidley Comments -- Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jul 20 22:47:10 UTC 2016


Josh,

Thanks for your comments.  I'll leave it to Jonathan and Lise to determine
whether you should be on any part of tonight's call.  I'm going to try my
best to be on it, but 2-4 am is difficult (only slightly better than 3-5 or
4-6 am...).  I've made a tweak to touch on the additional point you raise
here.

I'm now going to circulate this to the full list.

Greg







*Gregory S. Shatan | Partner *McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167
T: 212-609-6873
C: 917-816-6428
F: 212-416-7613
gshatan at mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com

BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK
EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA  | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <
jhofheimer at sidley.com> wrote:

> Greg – Your follow-up responses are well stated, thank you.  I note there
> is one additional “Key Issue” in Sidley’s actual mark-up to the IANA IPR
> license that goes to the overall authority of the IETF Trust.  It’s
> actually mentioned briefly in the Issues List under Section C.2.e but
> expanded upon in our comment to Section 6.3 of the IANA IPR License
> (another copy is attached here for convenience).
>
>
>
> Specifically, we ask the CWG to consider whether the IETF Trust should
> ever have the unilateral power to terminate the IPR License with ICANN, or
> if it should be entitled to terminate only (and automatically) following a
> determination by the [Community/CSC/IRP Process] that PTI and/or ICANN have
> failed in their duties in such a manner that transition to a new IANA
> Services Provider is required.  This would eliminate the IETF Trust’s
> authority to review the quality of IANA Services, but also would avoid
> having to create another administrative review process.  It also makes
> logical sense because we would not want to find ourselves in a situation in
> which ICANN/PTI are providing the IANA Services, but no longer have a
> license to the IP or domain names because of an independent finding by the
> IETF Trust.
>
>
>
> I do not think much time was allocated for an IPR discussion on tonight’s
> call (thus, I was not planning to attend), but this is an item for
> discussion on the next IPR-focused call.  Of course, if you would like to
> discuss this evening, just let me know.
>
>
>
> -Josh
>
> *JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER*
> Partner
>
>
> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 213 896 6061
> jhofheimer at sidley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 6:42 AM
> *To:* Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> *Cc:* Client Committee; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Resnick, Yael;
> Greeley, Amy E.; Grapsas, Rebecca
> *Subject:* Re: Revised Sidley Comments -- Proposed Principal Terms of
> IANA Intellectual Property Agreements
>
>
>
> Client Committee et al.:
>
>
>
> I've taken the revised comments chart sent by Sidley and added a third
> column with draft potential responses by the CWG.  I look forward to any
> comments you may have.  Please let me know when you think this should be
> sent to the CWG stewardship list.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <
> jhofheimer at sidley.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Client Committee,
>
>
>
> Per your request on last week’s call, attached please find further
> remaining comments to the Proposed Principal Terms of the IANA IPR
> Agreements.  We have removed from the table those comments that were
> addressed in writing or in discussion, and have just a few outstanding
> points for consideration, along with suggestions of how to address some of
> these issues.
>
>
>
> Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions or would like to
> discuss further.  We also are turning our attention to a review of the
> initial draft IPR License and Community Agreements shared with us.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> *JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER*
> Partner
>
>
> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 213 896 6061
> jhofheimer at sidley.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Hofheimer, Joshua T.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:42 PM
> *To:* Client Committee
> *Cc:* Greg Shatan; Flanagan, Sharon; Gregory, Holly; Resnick, Yael;
> Greeley, Amy E.
> *Subject:* RE: Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property
> Agreements
>
>
>
> 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
> <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/20160720/64885b39/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Cwg-client mailing list