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

Fri Jul 17 08:43:01 UTC 2015

Hi,

I believe Lise has accurately captured the status on things with the IPR.

Regards

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk> wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
>
>
>
> As the one writing to Sidley I will give you the background for the
> request. Below are the notes from the CWG meeting on July 9th where the
> group discussed the IPR and my further comments:
>
>
>
> “*Client committee met briefly prior to this meeting, preceded by an
> informal meeting of the members of the client committee yesterday*
>
>
>
> *•        Ongoing concern with regard to prudent use of legal resources
> and manage cost effectively. Chairs of CWG, CCWG, ICANN legal and finance
> met to discuss how to effectively manage resources and costs. Proposal to
> include legal fees in the remit of the client committee, in conjunction
> with ICANN staff. No questions or objections raised to this approach.*
>
>
>
> *•        Main points discussed during today's meeting were: 1) IANA
> Trademark / IPR - request was received from the ICG to provide an update
> with the chairs did confirming that CWG-Stewardship is silent on what to do
> with IANA trademark. ICANN Board also provided input to ICG on this topic
> (see
> http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html>).
> *
>
>
>
> *CWG-Stewardship to determine whether or not it should take a position on
> this issue. Two options - remain silent (maintain status quo, and rely on
> commitment from from ICANN Board) or ask Sidley for expert input to
> evaluate what the options are from the CWG-Stewardship's point of view.
> Other communities have indicated their preference to move it to IETF trust
> - based on conversations with IANAPLAN and CRISP, those groups have
> indicated that they are not planning to make any changes to their proposal,
> unless CWG-Stewardship would come forward with input that would conflict
> with their proposed approach. Should this be handled by Sidley or ICANN
> legal team, also taking into account desire to be prudent with regards to
> costs? Would first need to confirm with other communities if they would be
> comfortable with the ICANN legal team - if not, it would not make any sense
> to approach ICANN legal (who might also engage external expertise to
> address this issue). Other communities have also indicated willingness to
> share information concerning the legal advice that they have obtained.
> Likely that ICANN Legal input would be similar to the response provided by
> the ICANN Board, which is likely not acceptable by the other communities.
> However, if this input is provided by an independent party, such as Sidley,
> it might be received differently. Need to distinguish between advice on
> trademark law and insight into ICANN's position, where the former is what
> is likely needed as latter is already known. ICG would likely move forward
> with proposal to move trademark to a trust (IETF) unless the other
> communities indicate that this would not be acceptable. A non-decision is
> not desirable - as such CWG should get expert advice to base its position
> on whether it is in agreement with the current proposal or whether an
> alternative proposal is preferred. Sidley could be asked to conduct a
> stress-test approach; what risks exists with each approach from a
> CWG-Stewardship perspective. Evaluate these in view of ICANN's position and
> the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or
> acceptable. As a point of information, there are 3 trademarks involved: (i)
> "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA" and (iii) the IANA Logo,
> which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers
> Authority.*
>
> *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.”*
>
>
>
> So we plan to have an assessment from Sidley on the issue and to involve
> the other communities regarding this. The reason to ask for an analysis on
> different scenarios is to have the full picture of any issues that might
> arise.
>
>
>
> We have been told that such an analysis doesn’t take long, and we are
> asking for a quote in order to be cost-conscious. If this turns out to be
> too expensive or too lengthy the plan B will  be to get back to CWG and
> discuss a new approach to the IP issue.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lise
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Alissa Cooper
> *Sendt:* 16. juli 2015 19:22
> *Til:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA
> *Emne:* [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the
> CWG
>
>
>
> 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
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150717/e4b1485d/attachment.html>