<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Sidley Colleagues,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Greg Shatan</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:09 AM<br>Subject: Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements<br>To: "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#9900ff"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">First in the bit about the registration rules for </span><a href="http://iana.org/" rel="noreferrer" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" target="_blank"><span>iana</span>.org</a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> and</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">talking about are status values in the shared registration system --</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">clientTransferProhibited. I think this is just a clarification, and</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">no big deal.</span></font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#9900ff"><br></font></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">>Agree.</font><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting,</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">decision-making processes they use. A suggestion in the room was that</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">the communities must be present for quorum. I think this is a good</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">making up rules when a decision is needed). Does anyone object? Does</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(153,0,255);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">it seem reasonable?</span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div><br></div><div>>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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Greg</div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div>
</div><br></div>