[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG

Thu Jul 16 18:43:51 UTC 2015

Alissa,

I'll give you my thoughts on the various questions, although these are not
official answers of the CWG:

1.  Timeline:  It's unclear if Manal is asking about the timeline for the
estimate or for the underlying project.  For the estimate, counsel to the
CWG (Sidley) responded yesterday on another estimate request made at the
same time, and said they would respond shortly to this request.  For the
underlying project, I think it's premature to come up with a specific
timeline until we engage counsel and talk timing with them.  That said,
everyone understands this needs to be expedited to coordinate with the ICG.

2.  Fallback Plan:  I don't think there's any need to formulate a backup
plan.  I am highly confident that we will get the help we need from Sidley
with an appropriate time and cost.  They've been working closely with us;
they know they need to be pragmatic and cost-effective.  Also, ICANN has
said that they will give this project the support it needs, so the concept
of "out of budget" doesn't strictly apply.  That said, this is not a "blank
check," and if the estimate seems excessive, I'm sure we'll push back and
quickly get it right.  It would be presumptuous of me to speculate on a
back-up plan in the exceptionally unlikely event that we decide not to
assign Sidley this particular task; I'll just reiterate that I think it is
unnecessary and even a tad alarmist to focus on this.

3.  As for Milton's question, "why would CWG be seriously considering
options that are going to cause compatibility problems" with the CRISP
proposal?  I believe the CWG has a duty and an obligation to come to its
own understanding of the facts and the law, and then to come to its own
conclusions.  As has been well stated by our Chairs, the CWG has not yet
formed a view. Implicit in this, the CWG has not formed a view on the CRISP
proposal.  It would be highly inappropriate to pressure the CWG to "go
along to get along," to accept another community's position just because it
showed up first, and not on the basis of actual deliberation and
understanding.  The CRISP proposal does not form any kind of "status quo."
 Indeed, the "status quo" is that ICANN owns the trademarks and domain
names.  Although the RFP asked us to maintain the status quo unless there
specific, well-explained reasons not to, I think that the CWG should
approach this question with an open mind, without giving weight to either
the status quo or the CRISP proposal.  If the CWG comes up with a different
proposal than the CRISP proposal, the ICG should also approach this
situation with an open mind, and facilitate a determination by the
communities and the ICG of how to resolve any incompatibility.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Could someone shed light on the questions posed by Manal below?
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg>
> *Subject: **Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG*
> *Date: *July 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM PDT
> *To: *Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> >
> *Cc: *IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
>
> I also don't understand what's the timeline of this and more importantly
> what's the fallback scenario in case this requires many hours and turn to
> be out of budget ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:37 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
>
> Hi Milton,
>
> I don't understand it either, and that would be a good question for the
> CWG.
>
> Lynn
>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> I  do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to
> figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely,
> make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions
> operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because
> they don't meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously
> considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems?
>
>
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org
> <internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
>
> The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from
> the call was as follows:
>
> Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on
> CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on
> hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct
> Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to
> the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) -
> also consider involving other communities.
>
>
> The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from
> their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken
> the action: <
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you
> can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work
> Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i)
> stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual
> trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will
> decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output
> of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.
>
>
> Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if
> it's wrong.
>
> Alissa
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150716/aac8b559/attachment-0001.html>