[client com] FW: IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement drafts

[Greg Shatan]

All,

I thought it would be helpful to prepare the attached redline comparisons
of the IETF Trust's new version vs the CWG version.

The IETF Trust only provided redlines against their own first draft.
Typically, the redline provided with the latest draft shows changes to the
immediate prior draft.  Presumably, the IETF Trust did not do this because
they were responding to both the CWG and the RIR drafts.

In any event, the attached comparisons show which changes in our drafts
were deleted by the IETF Trust and which were retained by the IETF Trust.
This cannot be ascertained from the redlines circulated by the IETF Trust.

We should consider whether to circulate these redlines on the iana-ipr
list. We may wish to do so if we are going to refer back to the changes
that we made which were then deleted by the IETF Trust.

Greg

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com
> wrote:

> Jonathan, Lise and the Client Committee,
>
>
>
> See attached.  Sidley will prepare a table for your review that highlights
> the key departures from our proposed drafts.
>
>
>
> 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:* iana-ipr-bounces at nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces at nro.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Jorge Contreras
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:03 AM
> *To:* iana-ipr at nro.net
> *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement
> drafts
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> We have attached for your review clean and redlined versions of the
> Community Agreement and License Agreement, which have been marked against
> the versions distributed on July 5.  We have inserted numerous
>
> comments in the marked version using the MS Word comment feature. These
> comments are intended to address specific text or suggestions made by CWG,
> RIR or IETF during the last round.
>
>
>
> In these candidate agreements, we have accepted a number of suggestions
> both the operational communities. We know that everyone is anxious to get
> these done, and many of the changes seem to us to be reasonable and in
> keeping with the Trust’s responsibilities.
>
>
>
> What we have not accepted, and what we do not believe we can accept, is
> any arrangement in which the Trust is subject to "approvals" by the
> CCG.  We remain convinced that such acceptance would be contrary to
>
> the Trust's anticipated fiduciary responsibility as the holder of the
> Marks, and the Trustees cannot responsibly expose the Trust to such a
> threat.  We believe that any independent trust would face this problem.
>
>
>
> In addition, we do not think that, given the terms of our Trust Agreement,
> the Trust is capable of acting as a "steward" for other operational
> communities.  The existing Trust Agreement also does not permit the Trust
> to transfer away any asset once it is owned by the Trust, so we cannot
> accept any term that anticipates such a transfer.
>
>
>
> We realize that some people would prefer to amend some terms of the IETF
> Trust Agreement.  That may be possible in the future in order to
> accommodate some of the above worries.  But all changes have to go through
> the IETF consensus process, and there simply isn't time to do that this
> year.  Hence our agreement must work with the Trust as it currently exists.
>
>
>
> We hope that you will agree that we are making substantive and collegial
> process here, and we hope you understand that the existing terms of the
> Trust Agreement are a hard limit on what we may possibly
>
> do.  We look forward to additional comments and to a fruitful discussion
> on our next call.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jorge L. Contreras
>
> Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
>
> 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
>
> Washington, DC 20036
>
> contreraslegal at att.net
>
>
>
> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and
> confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
> message immediately.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-client mailing list
> Cwg-client at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160731/cfbef291/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: License Agreement Redline - IETF Trust Second Draft vs CWG Draft.DOC
Type: application/msword
Size: 121344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160731/cfbef291/LicenseAgreementRedline-IETFTrustSecondDraftvsCWGDraft-0001.DOC>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Community Agreement Redline - IETF Trust Second Draft vs CWG Draft.DOC
Type: application/msword
Size: 150528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/attachments/20160731/cfbef291/CommunityAgreementRedline-IETFTrustSecondDraftvsCWGDraft-0001.DOC>