[CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name

[Jonathan Robinson]

Andrew,

 

Thanks for this suggestion. Lise and I believe we cannot change our proposal
at this late stage.

 

However, it will be very good if we (with the help of this group and anyone
else) can communicate as widely as possible that the TM related language in
the Final Proposal is preceded by other text and contained in square
brackets such that the Final Proposal effectively does not make a specific
proposal with regard to the trademark. Therefore, the Final Proposal is
specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals
on this subject.

 

This is why (copied from the proposal with my emphasis):

 

--

 

Annex S: Draft Proposed Term Sheet 

 

What follows below is an initial draft proposed term sheet that could be the
precursor to the ICANN-PTI Contract. This is based on a legal memorandum
prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the
extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the
current proposal governs. The term sheet will be subject of negotiation
between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice).

 

.             Terms in [square brackets] are placeholders only

 

[ICANN will grants PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide
license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection
with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.]  

 

--

 

i.e. the trademark related language is placeholder text in square brackets
within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus
support of the CWG save for as presented in the Final Proposal.

 

Jonathan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
Sent: 23 June 2015 15:07
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and
iana.org domain name

 

Hi,

 

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0300, Greg Shatan wrote:

> will first need to gather our facts (and not just the facts that tend 

> to support a particular position), without which any independent 

> counsel will be (literally) clueless.

 

After some hallway conversations yesterday, it seems to me that, while the
above is a good idea, such fact-gathering and so on is really part of
implementation.

 

Therefore, it seems to me that (especially since the sample term sheet is
called out as not being normative anyway) it would be possible to remove the
term sheet annex (or approve the document without it or something like that)
in order to send the document to the ICG.  After all, by removing the text
and standing mute, the proposals as such are not inconsistent.

 

That would allow us to get on with one important task (transmitting to the
ICG) while working on another (sorting out the IPR issues).

 

Does that seem reasonable?

 

A

 

--

Andrew Sullivan

 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

 <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150623/77534566/attachment-0001.html>