[CWG-Stewardship] IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Chuck,

 

Good point. I think it will make sense for a small group to draft the
responses for subsequent review by the IOTF and/or CWG in a similar process
to how we dealt with the bylaws work.

It does seem logical to me that the client committee take on this work in
conjunction with the consultation with Sidley but we haven't explicit
discussed doing so.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 22 June 2016 17:59
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA IPR

 

Thanks Jonathan.  Am I correct in assuming that the Client Committee will
draft responses to the questions / issues raised by Sidley?

 

Chuck

 

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:36 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> 
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] IANA IPR

 

All,

 

The IANA IPR group (Greg Shatan, Lise Fuhr & myself) from the CWG had a
meeting with colleagues from the other two IANA operational communities.

Greg & I attended. Lise was unable to but we have discussed it since.

 

We picked up on the relatively recently Sidley advice and considered the
issues arising and next steps.

 

Essentially, we agreed on at least the following actions:

 

1. The key questions and issues arising from the Sidley review of the
Principal Terms need to be organised, reviewed and dealt with. CWG
Stewardship (Names) will tabulate these for ease of processing. Issues
needing resolution by CWG only will be dealt with by CWG.  Issues needing
resolution by all three operations communities will be referred back to the
IANA IPR group.

2. We will utilise ICANN project management staff to track the key issues
and integrate this (IANA IPR) stream of work into the overall project
tracking and reporting.

3. It will be useful to meet face to face in Helsinki if possible.

4. Draft agreements for three licences of the IPR are being prepared by IETF
Trust legal counsel. These will be sent this group for review once drafted.

 

Now, the Sidley input does not immediately give us in the CWG the ability to
move forward without reviewing it properly and agreeing the actions
required.

Accordingly, we propose to take two actions within the CWG in the short
term.

 

A.     Tabulate the advice given and commence drafting answers or responses
to the questions / issues raised

B.     Client Committee meet with Sidley (after ICANN Helsinki) to discuss
the input and seek to reconcile it with the views and positions shared by
the other operational communities.

 

Please indicate if you have any concerns with this approach.

 

Thank-you,

 

 

Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160622/305c7978/attachment.html>