[CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript DT-IPR Meeting on 16 November

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the DT-IPR Meeting on 16 November 2015 will be available
here:   https://community.icann.org/x/QLpYAw

 

A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.

 

Kind regards,

Brenda

 




Action Items


*        Action item: ask ICANN for information on current practice and management of the IP to date
(note, ICANN has not had to exercise external quality control to date as there is no licensee but
only internal quality control)


Notes


.  See document circulated by Greg prior to this meeting (see also
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXNHiwo/edit?usp=sharing>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUREZlPBiU-oSYxQXiahEbTcH4P3Ov_EReWzmXNHiwo/edit?usp=sharing)

.  Remit is to come up with requirements and principles that CWG-Stewardship would use to determine
what would be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks and domain names

.  Use those requirements and principles to evaluate potential owner. Only proposed candidate at
this point in time is the IETF Trust.

.  Question 1: What should be the requirements of the Trust to ensure continued operations,
stability and security of the IANA functions in the event of separation? Owner will not be operator
so there needs to be a license, but also consider minimum requirements linked to an owner. Question
1, bullet #3 is key, but directions should also be followed prior to any possible separation. User
of trademark is only one single user at this moment. IANA operator will be exclusively licensee
following transition, but owner of trademark (trust) would also have certain obligations per
trademark law. There is a need to not impede the continued operations (additional requirement).

.  Question 5: What does the DT propose to be the defining qualities of a neutral/independent trust
that will serve in this role? Review of responses provided during last meeting which is a working
draft which is open for refinement. Key requirement is #3 (responsive and responsible to three
communities). Also considers cost issue (needs to have necessary funding to carry out these
responsibilities & needs access to employee with experience (license manager) and outside trademark
counsel).

.  What does 'neutral' mean: a) not captured by or under the sole control of the IANA Function
Operator, b) towards the views of the three communities, c) should not be an IFO (what is believed
to be the intent of the other operational communities), d) not dominated by any of the operational
communities - needs equilibrium (could be established contractually). Broader definition of
neutrality is already captured as part of other requirements (e.g. follow instructions of relevant
communities), consider sticking to narrow definition here (not IFO).

.  Quality control has to meet the requirements / needs of all three communities. If any has any
concern about how IANA is performing in relation to trademark, a mechanism needs to be in place to
address such concerns. Could quality control also be outsourced? Certain amount of operational
control could be sub-contracted for example to operational communities, but ultimate
control/responsibility is with the trademark owner. Brand owner is required to exercise active
quality control to meet minimum requirements.

.  IETF Trust will not change its governance structure - is not a practical option and not an
expected outcome. If requirements cannot be met by IETF Trust it may be more efficient and effective
to create a new trust or consider whether there are contractual arrangements that could be put in
place to meet the requirements without changing the governance structure. If you would start from
scratch you might actually have come up with a joint trust - but not feasible within current
timeframe.

.  Under which circumstances, if any, would the trademark be taken away from the new owner (the
trust)? Separate question to be considered at some point.

.  Consider eventually moving from this document to clearer principles and requirements.

.  Need to determine what quality control needs to be exercised to meet minimum obligations.

.  Next CWG-Stewardship meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Greg will review and update document to
make it more user-friendly to look at principles and requirements to facilitate further input on the
list.

.  Next DT-IPR call scheduled for next week, Tuesday 24 November at 21.00 UTC.

Action item: ask ICANN for information on current practice and management of the IP to date (note,
ICANN has not had to exercise external quality control to date as there is no licensee but only
internal quality control)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151116/d24614e8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151116/d24614e8/image003-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151116/d24614e8/image004-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151116/d24614e8/smime-0001.p7s>