<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Two issues, a placeholder and an aside:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. <u>Should we have a call prior to the all-hands call with the other communities?</u> We really need to consider how to respond to these changes (and the rejection/deletion of many of our changes), so that we have an approach going into the call.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. <u>We need to consider how to respond to the points raised in the IETF Trust's email texts (paraphrased below, with some very preliminary thoughts below each)</u>.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><div><div><p class="gmail-MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"></p><ul><li><b><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">We do not believe we can accept any arrangement in which the Trust is subject to "approvals" by the CCG. Such acceptance would be contrary to </span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">the Trust's anticipated fiduciary responsibility as the holder of the Marks. We believe that any independent trust would face this problem.</span></b></li><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">Approvals and consents are mentioned a number of times in the Principal Terms. This document was presented to the IETF Trust's counsel for comment and (after waiting weeks) we were told counsel had no comment. It's disappointing that this issue is coming to a head now, as opposed to months ago when counsel had the opportunity to raise it and did not.</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">If the "advice" of the communities (or any community) can have the same weight as "GAC Advice" or GNSO policy recommendations, "advice" rather than "approvals" may be acceptable.</span></li><li><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">It should be noted that (as I understand it) the Trust's "anticipated fiduciary responsibility" is to the IETF Trust and to the Beneficiary of that Trust (the "IETF as a whole"), not to the other communities.</font></li><li><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">I'm not sure what the reference to an "independent Trust" alludes to. I assume it alludes to a Trust independent of the communities (but of course, the IETF Trust is not independent of all the communities, given its structure and where its fiduciary responsibilities lie).</font></li></ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black"><b>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.</b></span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">Interesting that the IETF Trust itself chose to head Section 3 of the Community Agreement "Stewardship of the IANA Intellectual Property," but now claims it can't act as a "steward."</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">This term isn't mentioned in the ICG Proposal or in the Principal Terms, but it is meaningful as a concept aligned to accountability, which the Trust also seems to resist. The ICANN community has spent nearly two years making ICANN more accountable. Is it ironic (or worse) to give the IANA IPR to an entity that is not willing to be accountable (at least not "with teeth") to the communities (other than the IETF)? </span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black"><b>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.</b></span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">How do we feel about this being a perpetual transfer to the IETF Trust, regardless of circumstances? Note that the communities were able to cause ICANN to give up the IANA IPR. Is it ironic (or worse) to give it to an organization where we have no such ability?</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">Technically, Jorge may be correct, so long as one assumes the IANA IPR will become "Trust Assets" under the Trust Agreement (which states</span><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif"> "except as otherwise expressly permitted hereunder, the Trustees shall not, and shall not have the right or power to, (i) exchange, distribute, assign, sell, transfer, renounce, or convey, the Trust Assets"). But, could they take on the IANA IPR as owner without making them "Trust Assets"?</font></li></ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black"><b>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.</b></span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">I'm not sure why this is being said. We've been trying to work within the terms of the Trust Agreement for many months, so I'm not sure who "some people" are.</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:black">However, if this is an opening to make some future changes to the Trust Agreement, that would be worth exploring.</span></li></ul></ul><div><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">3. <u>The Placeholder: We need the chart that Sidley is preparing so we can analyze the issues in the most efficient manner</u>.</font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">4. <u>The (Important) Aside</u>. I was tempted to ask whether we can expect comments from the IETF (as distinguished from the IETF Trust) on these documents -- or are the IETF and the Trust working as one here? How does the fit with the CWG's stated goal of "neutrality" (namely, no community having any more influence over the holder of the IANA IPR than any other community). How do the agreements as envisioned by the IETF Trust fit with the idea that we would solve "neutrality" issues "functionally" (through the agreements) rather than "structurally" (through changing the IETF Trust or establishing a new Trust)?</font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div><p></p></div><div><p class="gmail-MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:black"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></font></span></p></div><div><p class="gmail-MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><br></p></div></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><p class="gmail-MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> </span></p></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I thought it would be helpful to prepare the attached redline comparisons of the IETF Trust's new version vs the CWG version. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg <br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com" target="_blank">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Jonathan, Lise and the Client Committee,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">See attached. Sidley will prepare a table for your review that highlights the key departures from our proposed drafts.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Josh<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Joshua Hofheimer<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sidley Austin LLP<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com" target="_blank">jhofheimer@sidley.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:%28213%29%20896-6061" value="+12138966061" target="_blank">(213) 896-6061</a> (LA direct)<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:%28650%29%20565-7561" value="+16505657561" target="_blank">(650) 565-7561</a> (Palo Alto direct)<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="tel:%28323%29%20708-2405" value="+13237082405" target="_blank">(323) 708-2405</a> (cell)<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net" target="_blank">iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net" target="_blank">iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jorge Contreras<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:iana-ipr@nro.net" target="_blank">iana-ipr@nro.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement drafts<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">Dear colleagues,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard","serif";color:black">do. We look forward to additional comments and to a fruitful discussion on our next call.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Jorge L. Contreras<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Contreras Legal Strategy LLC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Washington, DC 20036<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><a href="mailto:contreraslegal@att.net" target="_blank">contreraslegal@att.net</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Cwg-client mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cwg-client@icann.org" target="_blank">Cwg-client@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>