[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo

[Alan Greenberg]

I have no particular stake on the outcome of all this.

However, I would find it useful to have a clear and unambiguous 
statement from the Trustees on behalf of the IETF Trust saying that 
the Trust has the will and resources to adequately police and enforce 
the IANA trademark.

The proposal was made in the CRISP proposal and accepted in the 
IANAPLAN proposal, Although a number of the Trustees participated in 
creating the latter document, we really do need a formal statement of 
the Trust that they are willing and able, if not eager, to take this 
on. There is no way that ICANN should enter into an agreement to give 
up the TM without such assurances.

Alan

At 05/08/2015 03:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

>This memo shows a lack of understanding of the policy issues 
>involved in determining the status of the IANA trademarks. For 
>example, under disadvantages of ICANN continuing to hold the 
>trademark, it fails to note that ICANN is the owner of the PTI 
>subsidiary and thus would be in a position to interfere with any 
>attempt to transfer the IFO away from ICANN's controlled subsidiary 
>to another IFO.  The memo seems to be laboring under the risible 
>assumption that ICANN is a neutral party with respect to 
>administration of the IFO.
>
>The memo also fails to note that the numbers community objects just 
>as strongly to ICANN retaining the trademarks as to PTI retaining them.
>
>The assessments of the alleged difficulties involved in IETF Trust 
>holding the trademarks seem inflated to me. Basically the opinion 
>erects a strawman (what if you have to create a new trust) and 
>spends most of its time dealing with that rather than the actual proposal.
>
>As I noted before this memo was commissioned, legal opinions can 
>clarify what the options are, but they are not a substitute for real 
>engagement with, debate on, and achievement of consensus around the 
>merits of the different options.  We have yet to achieve consensus 
>on the status of the IANA trademarks and frankly we will not achieve 
>one based on this memo.
>
>--MM
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
>Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 11:37 AM
>To: cwg-Stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo
>
>Dear all,
>This legal input was sent to the Client Committee earlier today.
>Best,
>Grace
>
>From: 
><<mailto:cwg-client-bounces at icann.org>cwg-client-bounces at icann.org> 
>on behalf of Sharon Flanagan 
><<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>sflanagan at sidley.com>
>Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:05 AM
>To: Client Committee <<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>cwg-client at icann.org>
>Subject: [client com] IPR Memo
>
>Dear All,
>
>Attached is a memo on the IPR issue under the three ownership 
>structures.  Please let us know if you have any questions or would 
>like to discuss.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Holly, Josh and Sharon
>
>SHARON FLANAGAN
>Partner
>
>Sidley Austin LLP
>+1.415.772.1271
><mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>sflanagan at sidley.com
>
>
>
>
>****************************************************************************************************
>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-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150805/e02e0ef3/attachment-0001.html>