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

Tue Jun 23 23:14:06 UTC 2015

I agree with Greg's suggestion to Co-Chairs. That said, I think it will be
good to determine the CWG's position on the issue as soon as possible.

I think It's really a minor issue that should not have taken the amount of
traffic already witnessed and I recognise I am probably one of the
contributors to that, so I say this with all sense of responsibility ;-)

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Jun 2015 19:27, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> As a practical matter, I am actually in favor of Andrew's proposal, since
> that is the simplest way to signify to a reader that the CWG has not yet
> formed a position on this point. It is something that we need to work on,
> based on a speedy (but not hasty) collecting and analysis of all the facts,
> including facts best learned from members of the protocols and numbers
> communities, and consultation with outside counsel.
>
> The current proposal was perceived by some as being inconsistent with the
> other proposals and as a result, we were requested by the ICG to rather
> rapidly resolve this perceived inconsistency. Upon reflection and
> discussion with a variety of people, I don't think we would be best served
> dealing with this in a sprint.
>
> However, I also take Jonathan's point that the document in fact does not
> state a position on this point, or indeed on any other point in the Term
> Sheet in Annex S, given the particular caveats attached to Annex S. I
> further take our esteemed co-Chairs' point (expressed by Jonathan for
> himself and Lise) that it is too late to change the physical document.
> This makes sense to me, given that it is in front of the Chartering
> Organizations for an "up or down" vote after some weeks of consideration.
> Further, I trust their judgment to navigate this critical stage.
>
> I might tentatively suggest that the co-Chairs consider the possibility of
> a communication responding to the ICG and providing further comfort that
> this is not a position being proposed by the CWG and should essentially be
> "read out" of the document.  Thus, the Proposal (being in the end, silent
> on the matter) is not inconsistent with the other two proposals.
>
> Hopefully, this will be sufficient for the ICG to allow us to work out our
> proposal on this point without a fire drill.  I think there is a spirit of
> goodwill to do so and I am looking forward to the opportunity.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info
> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150623/368f5ecd/attachment-0001.html>