June 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Understood. But to ensure proper intent and translation, I think less potentially ambiguous. Alan At 10/06/2015 08:34 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Each means both in this sentence. (A bill >requires approval of each house of Congress >before it is sent to the President.) >Either would mean one or the other. > >That said both also works. > >On Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >A few minutes late, but... > >In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with >the current wording about the optional Public >Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. > >However, the wording change I requested to >clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. > >...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of >the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... > >should read > >...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... > >(Caps added to highlight the change in this >message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) > >Alan > > >At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > >>Forwarding again to Client Committee. >> >>From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org > >>Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM >>To: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org >, " >>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final >>Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June >> >>Dear all, >> >>During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and >>final reading of the Proposal. Changes were >>made live, and outstanding changes were noted >>as action items (see notes below). The staff >>team has reviewed the proposal and completed >>all actions listed. Please note that Sidley >>will provide a final review as well which >>includes some work on the implementation text >>in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. >> >>With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into >>a final review period that lasts until 23:59 >>UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, >>the intention of the review period is to do a >>âproofreadâ and notify the group of any >>errors. During this period of 26 hours, any >>statements or comments on the Proposal may also >>be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on >>the call, if you are making a statement, please >>be sure to identify whether you do so as a >>member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, >>as an individual representing a specific >>organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. >> >>After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will >>work with staff to rectify any errors, update >>section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver >>the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on >>11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how >>the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, >>through its members and participants, to >>coalesce support for the Proposal among >>Chartering Organizations. In addition, there >>are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC >>and one at 13:00 UTC): >><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. >>These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the >>broader community about the contents of the >>final proposal. Finally, as we head into >>ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the >>schedule of sessions that relate to the >>CWG-Stewardship work: >><https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. >> >>Thank you all for your great work and >>dedication to the process. Please contact us if >>you have any questions regarding the process or >>administration over the next 48h. >> >>Best, >>Gramika (Grace+Marika) >> >> >>From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org > >>Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM >>To: " cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" < cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, >>Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 >> >> >>Dear all, >> >>The notes, recordings and transcripts for the >>CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are >>available here: >><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 >> >>Kind regards, >>Brenda >> >> >> >> >> >>Action Items >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" >> >>Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the >>defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >>Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" >> >>Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. >> >>Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble >> >>Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter >> >>Action: conform text to the defined terms used >>in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >> >> >> >>Notes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>1. Opening Remarks >>Â· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. >>Â· Following closure of this meeting, >>staff will send final document to the CWG. >>Â· CWG will then have 24h to notify the >>group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen >>issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE >>Â· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. >> >>2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses >> >>Can expect a final version to be circulated in >>the next 24h. Staff is working on >>consistency-checking across the responses. The >>document is frozen as of 1 June. >> >>3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal >> >>The letter and responses from ICANN are posted >>on Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. >> >>Staff have included the responses in Section IV >>(and included an Annex to for the Finance information). >> >>4. Last Review of Final Proposal >> >>On screen now is version 5. The difference >>between the previous version and the latest is >>that the Chairs took some time to review which >>items were still open and which had been >>resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key >>outstanding issues. This latest version also >>includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. >> >>Paragraph 108: Change the wording from >>"ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the >>definition in the footnote. ICANN has control >>and ownership of PTI and the implementation >>documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. >> >>Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" >> >>Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. >> >>Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from >>both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. >> >>Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 >> >>Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles >>are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. >> >>Action: conform text to the defined terms used >>in the rest of the Proposal, among other things >> >>Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" >> >>Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. >> >>Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table >> >>Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble >> >>Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter >> >>Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg >> >>5. Overall Timeline / Milestones >> >> a. Communications >> >> b. Webinars on 11 June >> >> c. Sessions at ICANN 53 >> >>6. AOB >> >> a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement >> >> b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call >> >> c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June >> >>7. Closing Remarks >> >>After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with >>comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Cwg-client mailing list >>Cwg-client(a)icann.org >><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

5 7

drift in v5
by manning June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? CWG email re new draft - -<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html> Draft Document - <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e…> Proposed text in most recent document - > " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. “ this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would this make the ICG’s job of aligning the various proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. manning bmanning(a)karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102

13 33

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Greg, there you go down the rabbit hole. Yes, I said the problems COULD arise regardless of the home of the server the IANA.ORG domain points to. And yes, I have complete confidence that there are technical solutions (even ones that *I* could develop, and that is certainly not my field of expertise). BUT developing them is not within our mandate nor on our critical path. THAT is why I suggested stopping at principles for the moment. Alan At 11/06/2015 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >I was going to go into the technical issues >regarding managing the domain name issue, but I >stopped myself, ssince as you say these issues >will exist regardless of who is the domain >registrant. Indeed, if the IETF Trust were to >start operating the <http://iana.org>iana.org >website after the transition, those issues would arise quickly. > >Since you've opened the door to the subject, >I'll walk in. (FWIW, I probably spend far more >time these days dealing with tech issues than pure trademark issues....) > >There are several alternatives. First, the page >at <http://iana.org>iana.org could be used as a >disambiguation page. An example of this can be >found at <http://www.scrabble.com>www.scrabble.com. > >Inline image 1 > > >Indeed, the current <http://iana.org>iana.org >home page is already very close to this, with >separate sections for domain names, number >resources and protocol assignments. Clicking on >these leads to third level pages under domains, >numbers and protocols. These could easily be >reworked into subdomains ><http://domains.iana.org>domains.iana.org, ><http://numbers.iana.org>numbers.iana.org and ><http://protocols.iana.org>protocols.iana.org, >which could then be hosted on servers managed by >the community that has separated from ICANN as >the IFO. Alternatively, the link for domains, >numbers or protocols could go to an entirely >different second level domain (e.g., iananumbers.web). > >Another alternative is for the separating >customer to stop using the ><http://iana.org>iana.org domain entirely, but >the first two options are probably more >palatable and less disruptive. If this is >approach is taken, you would probably want some >form of notification (I would say a pop-up, but >pop-up blockers make that suboptimal) of the new >domain name, at least for a period of time. > >This could be dealt with by contract now or at >the time of the split (or some combination of the two). > >Greg > >On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Greg, not quite. > >You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. >There are also technical issues. Currently ><http://iana.org>iana.org has uses within all >three communities and it is simple to do since >it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there >were to be a split at some point, it is not just >a matter of granting the right to use the TM, >but creating the mechanics to allow the domain >name to be transparently used by all three >entities. And if one of the groups has left >because they no longer have faith in the ability >of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. > >But the problems will be there regardless of >where the <http://iana.org>iana.org name >resolves to if there is a split. The best we can >do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. > >And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when >this was first discussed. Although no one wants >to stop using <http://iana.org>iana.org, and it >would probably more disruptive for the IETF than >others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive. > >Alan > > > >At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >>Alan, >> >>You took the words out of my mouth. A clause >>in the agreements between ICANN and the other >>two communities should require ICANN to grant a >>worldwide royalty-free license to use the >>trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to >>get fancy, there can be a contingent license >>that automatically springs into place when the customer separates. >> >>I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. >> >>Greg >> >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan >>Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>I refrained from weighing in when this was >>first discussed and in this iteration. But I >>will now. I think that whatever the solution, >>there must be some principle adhered to: >>1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is >>prepared to defend it if necessary. >>2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement >>with all three users of it (or the other two if >>the owner is one of the users) so that if that >>user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used >>by the others, the TM owner will grant it all >>necessary rights and privileges to continue >>using the TM with no user disruption. >>In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to >>be ICANN for the immediate future, because it >>will, either directly or through PTI, have >>agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those >>agreements are reasonable places in which to >>embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding >>and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary. >>But there are certainly other solutions that >>could also satisfy both principles. >>Like Chuck, I may be naive (something I have >>rarely been accused of), but I cannot see the >>details of the implementation being of concern >>to the AC/SO (with the possible exception of the ASO and the IPC). >>Alan >> >>At 10/06/2015 08:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>>Maarten, >>>The simple rationale for the numbers proposal, >>>and the protocol communityÃ¢s acceptance of >>>it, was that both of them em insist on having >>>the right to switch IANA functions operator at >>>some time in the future. If the IANA >>>trademarks and domains are Ã¢ownedÃ¢â¢â¬ by >>>a single IFO we cannot have that separability. >>>If we want the IFO to be able to change, then >>>the trademarks and domains must not he owned >>>by either ICANN (which is the >>>Ã¢ownerÃ¢/controller of PTIof PTI) or any >>>subsequent IFO. ItÃ¢s that t simple. >>> >>>--MM >>> >>>From: >>><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>>[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:22 PM >>>To: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan >>>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>Next to SeunÃ¢s argument, I think the >>>trademdemarks should remain with ICANN as it >>>is ICANN that will grant PTI the right to >>>operate the IANA functions through the >>>contract. It seems logical to me that ICANN >>>only provides a license to PTI to use the >>>trademarks through the same contract and not >>>transfer the trademarks themselves. >>> >>>The further question is if in the case of a >>>separation the assets will go from PTI to the >>>new entity (probably in practise: yes) but in >>>a legal sense I would assume that PTI returns >>>the assets to ICANN and that ICANN provide these to the new operator. >>> >>>From: Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > >>>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 22:05 >>>To: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>>Cc: SIDN SIDN >>><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, >>>"<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >>><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>Hi Greg, >>>Perhaps its worth noting that the other 2 >>>operational communities are still considering >>>whether to contract directly with PTI as their >>>proposals currently indicates contracting with >>>ICANN. So if for instance there is a need for >>>numbers community to move its functions, it >>>would be appropriate that the entity its >>>contracting with provides access to the IANA trademarks accordingly. >>>As far as PTI is concerned at the moment, its >>>separation mechanisms as proposed by CWG is >>>largely based on the names community (with the >>>other 2 communities having optional liaison >>>roles). Based on that, i don't see the other 2 >>>communities agreeing to transfer the IANA >>>transdemarks (which is for all 3 operational >>>communities) to PTI whose accountability mechanism is largely names based. >>>Regards >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Greg Shatan >>><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > wrote: >>>Maarten, >>> >>>That is not my understanding of >>>separation. If ICANN selects a new provider, >>>that provider would take all of the assets of >>>PTI (including the trademarks, under this >>>scenario), so it could provide the IANA >>>services. PTI would then be wound down and >>>ultimately dissolved by ICANN. Recall that >>>PTI is a controlled entity of ICANN and would >>>remain so throughout. In this case, the IANA >>>operations are separated from PTI. >>> >>>If PTI is actually separated (spun out) from >>>ICANN so that it is no longer under ICANN >>>control, it would be done to further separate >>>the IANA Functions from ICANN and IANA would >>>continue as a going concern (active business). >>> >>>Under no circumstances does PTI become >>>separated from ICANN without continuing to >>>serve as the IANA operator, yet continue to hold IANA-related assets. >>> >>>Greg >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Maarten Simon >>><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl> wrote: >>>Hi Greg, >>> >>>I would like to respond to your suggestion: >>> >>>'An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>>and practice. This also contributes to >>>separability, since all of the IFO-related >>>assets would be in a single entity.Ã¢ ¢ >>> >>>If PTI is separated, ICANN will select a new >>>IANA provider. Am I correct that if the IANA >>>trademarks rest with PTI, we will than have to >>>rename the services after the separation and >>>they will not any longer be named the IANA services ? >>> >>>If that is correct, I rather keep the rights in ICANN. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Maarten >>> >>>From: Greg Shatan >>><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 21:06 >>>To: manning <<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> >>>Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >>><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >>> >>>ICANN is an appropriate owner of the IANA >>>trademarks. PTI is also an appropriate owner >>>of the IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust does >>>not appear to be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. >>> >>>A trademark is an indicator of source or >>>origin. The owner of a trademark should be >>>the ultimate source of the goods and services >>>offered under that trademark. In the most >>>straightforward case, the trademark owner >>>offers those goods and services themselves or >>>through a subsidiary. The trademark owner can >>>license the mark to third parties to offer >>>goods and services under the mark; but, >>>consistent with their status as the ultimate >>>source, the trademark owner is required by law >>>to exercise continuing quality controls over >>>the goods and services offered by the licensee >>>and the use of the trademark by the >>>licensee. A trademark owner cannot merely >>>"hold the asset" as CRISP proposed. Ownership >>>of a trademark fundamentally involves being >>>the Ã¢source or originÃnÃ¢ of the goods and >>>services and fulfilling the Ã¢quality >>>controlÃ¢â¢â¬ oversight role, among other things. >>> >>>Quality control generally involves approvals >>>by the licensor of any potential new products >>>or services, and approvals of any changes in >>>products or services (what they are, how they >>>are offered, methods and processes, etc.), as >>>well as ongoing monitoring of quality. The >>>benchmark typically is that licensee's level >>>of quality should be at least as high as the >>>goods and services offered by the licensor >>>(i.e., the owner of the mark and the ultimate >>>source/origin of the goods/services). This is >>>all set forth in a trademark license between >>>the licensee ans licensor. If a trademark >>>license has no quality control provisions, or >>>the quality control provisions are not >>>adequate or not adequately exercised, the >>>license may be deemed a Ã¢Ånaked >>>license,Ã¢ exposing the trademark to the risk >>>of abandonment (loss of validity as a >>>trademark, and loss of the right to claim >>>ownership and usage rights of the mark). When >>>a licensee uses a trademark, all goodwill >>>(brand reputation) goes to the owner, not the >>>licensee. The owner is the holder of that goodwill. >>> >>>I don't see how the IETF Trust makes legal >>>sense as the owner of the IANA >>>Trademarks. The IETF Trust is not and does >>>not intend to be the ultimate source and >>>origin of IANA services. Unlike copyrights >>>and patents, trademarks can't be owned by >>>administrators; they need to be owned by the >>>source of the services. Further, the IETF >>>Trust is clearly not granting ICANN the right >>>to provide the IANA Services, so it is even >>>more inappropriate for the IETF Trust to be >>>the owner of the mark associated with those services. >>> >>>An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>>and practice. This also contributes to >>>separability, since all of the IFO-related assets would be in a single entity. >>> >>>If we assume for a moment that the IETF Trust >>>were to own the IANA trademarks, significant issues arise. >>> >>>In a trademark license, the IETF Trust, as >>>licensor, would have the power to terminate >>>the license according to its terms (e.g., for >>>material breach of the agreement, misuse of >>>the trademark, etc.) or to decide not to renew >>>the license, in which case ICANN would no >>>longer have the right to use the IANA >>>trademark in the provision of services. It >>>would be inappropriate for the IETF Trust to >>>have this power, without accountability to and >>>oversight by the names and numbers >>>communities. A mechanism would need to built for that. >>> >>>Quality control presents another >>>challenge. In virtually all circumstances, a >>>licensor exercises these quality control >>>obligations through an employee or employees >>>knowledgeable and capable of exercising >>>quality control over the licensee and its >>>services. .It may also be appropriate for the >>>operational communities to be involved in >>>quality control and other aspects of the >>>license as well, especially since quality >>>control and trademark usage guidelines can be >>>changed from time to time, typically at the >>>licensorÃ¢s discretion, andand since the >>>IETF is not in a position to exercise quality >>>control in the names and numbers space. This >>>may require amendment of the IETF Trust >>>Agreement, as well as the drafting of a somewhat unusual trademark license. >>> >>>Furthermore, the IETF Trust would also be >>>responsible for policing and enforcement of >>>the trademark against third parties and for >>>maintenance of trademark registrations. >>> >>>It is not clear how the IETF Trust intends to carry out any of these roles. >>> >>>Also, for the IETF Trust to become the owner >>>of the IANA trademark, ICANN would need to >>>assign all of its right, title and interest in >>>and to the IANA trademark to the IETF Trust, >>>along with all goodwill relating to the mark >>>(typically, in exchange for good and valuable >>>consideration). This may require a valuation >>>of the IANA trademark and its associated >>>goodwill, which in turn may have tax or other >>>financial consequences for one or both parties. >>> >>>Finally, the IETF Trust, as such, may not be >>>capable of owning the IANA Trademark, since >>>the IETF Trust does not appear to be a >>>Ã¢â¬legal entity.Ã¢ If this is correct, >>>the Trustees (in their roole as Trustees) are >>>the collective owners of the IANA Trademark >>>(in trust for the IETF, as Beneficiaries of >>>the IETF Trust), and would need to enter into >>>the trademark license (again, in their role as >>>Trustees of the Trust). This appears to be >>>consistent with Section 9.5 of the Amended and >>>Restated Trust Agreement and the ownership of >>>the IETF trademarks (which are owned by >>>Ã¢The Trustees of the IETETF TrustÃ¢ ) in >>>the USPTO database. (Oddly, this is >>>inconsistent with the IETF General Trademark >>>License (on the IETF Trust website) which >>>states that the IETF Trust is the licensor of >>>the IETF marks, and which also lacks appropriate quality control provisions.) >>> >>>Greg Shatan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:18 AM, manning >>><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >>>Missed the attachment which now iis attached! >>>manning >>><mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >>>PO Box 12317 >>>Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >>><tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >>>On 10June2015Wednesday, at 0:12, manning >>><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 19 May 2015, the number community >>> provided specific feedback regarding the need >>> for alignment on the IETF trademark and >>> domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). >>> > >>> > Did you notice that the most recent draft >>> (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday >>> morning specifically moves farther away from >>> this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN >>> rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? >>> > >>> > CWG email re new draft - -< >>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html >>> > >>> > Draft Document - < >>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e…>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e… >>> > >>> > >>> > Proposed text in most recent document - >>> > >>> >> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, >>> royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license >>> to use the IANA trademark and all related >>> trademarks, and all applications and >>> registrations therefor, for use in connection >>> with PTIÃ¢s activities under the ICANN-PTIPTI Contract. Ã¢ >>> > >>> > this moves the draft farther away from the >>> received comments, and would this make the >>> ICGÃ¢s job of aligning the va various >>> proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? >>> > >>> > It might be premature to go to BA with this >>> as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. >>> > >>> > >>> > manning >>> > <mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >>> > PO Box 12317 >>> > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >>> > <tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>> > <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>>_______________________________________________ >>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: <tel:%2B2348035233535>+2348035233535 >alt email:<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > >_______________________________________________ >CWG-Stewardship mailing list ><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > >Content-Type: image/png; name="image.png" >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image.png" >Content-ID: <ii_14de0cbf61d40fdc> >X-Attachment-Id: ii_14de0cbf61d40fdc >

2 1

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Greg, not quite. You are thinking about this as a TM attorney. There are also technical issues. Currently iana.org has uses within all three communities and it is simple to do since it ia all run out of the current IANA. If there were to be a split at some point, it is not just a matter of granting the right to use the TM, but creating the mechanics to allow the domain name to be transparently used by all three entities. And if one of the groups has left because they no longer have faith in the ability of the then-current IANA to do things correctly, that could be problematic. But the problems will be there regardless of where the iana.org name resolves to if there is a split. The best we can do is try to cover it with contractual assurances. And as was pointed out ion the IETF list when this was first discussed. Although no one wants to stop using iana.org, and it would probably more disruptive for the IETF than others (my recollection is that the name is built into code), we would survive. Alan At 10/06/2015 11:15 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: >Alan, > >You took the words out of my mouth. A clause in >the agreements between ICANN and the other two >communities should require ICANN to grant a >worldwide royalty-free license to use the >trademarks. This is a simple fix. If we want to >get fancy, there can be a contingent license >that automatically springs into place when the customer separates. > >I also agree with your point on defense/enforcement. > >Greg > >On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I refrained from weighing in when this was first >discussed and in this iteration. But I will now. >I think that whatever the solution, there must be some principle adhered to: > >1. The TM must be owned by an entity that is >prepared to defend it if necessary. > >2. Whoever owns it must enter into an agreement >with all three users of it (or the other two if >the owner is one of the users) so that if that >user chooses to move withdraw from the IFO used >by the others, the TM owner will grant it all >necessary rights and privileges to continue >using the TM with no user disruption. > >In my opinion, it makes sense for the owner to >be ICANN for the immediate future, because it >will, either directly or through PTI, have >agreements with the RIRs and the IETF and those >agreements are reasonable places in which to >embody principle 2. And ICANN has the funding >and legal resources to defend the TM if necessary. > >But there are certainly other solutions that >could also satisfy both principles. > >Like Chuck, I may be naive (something I have >rarely been accused of), but I cannot see the >details of the implementation being of concern >to the AC/SO (with the possible exception of the ASO and the IPC). > >Alan > > >At 10/06/2015 08:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>Maarten, >>The simple rationale for the numbers proposal, >>and the protocol communityâs acceptance of >>it, was that both of them insist on having the >>right to switch IANA functions operator at some >>time in the future. If the IANA trademarks and >>domains are âownedâ by a single IFO we >>cannot have that separability. If we want the >>IFO to be able to change, then the trademarks >>and domains must not he owned by either ICANN >>(which is the âownerâ/controller of PTI) or >>any subsequent IFO. Itâs that simple. >> >>--MM >> >>From: >><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >>[ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Simon >>Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:22 PM >>To: Seun Ojedeji; Greg Shatan >>Cc: <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org IANA >>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >> >>Next to Seunâs argument, I think the >>trademarks should remain with ICANN as it is >>ICANN that will grant PTI the right to operate >>the IANA functions through the contract. It >>seems logical to me that ICANN only provides a >>license to PTI to use the trademarks through >>the same contract and not transfer the trademarks themselves. >> >>The further question is if in the case of a >>separation the assets will go from PTI to the >>new entity (probably in practise: yes) but in a >>legal sense I would assume that PTI returns the >>assets to ICANN and that ICANN provide these to the new operator. >> >>From: Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > >>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 22:05 >>To: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>Cc: SIDN SIDN >><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, >>"<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >> >>Hi Greg, >>Perhaps its worth noting that the other 2 >>operational communities are still considering >>whether to contract directly with PTI as their >>proposals currently indicates contracting with >>ICANN. So if for instance there is a need for >>numbers community to move its functions, it >>would be appropriate that the entity its >>contracting with provides access to the IANA trademarks accordingly. >>As far as PTI is concerned at the moment, its >>separation mechanisms as proposed by CWG is >>largely based on the names community (with the >>other 2 communities having optional liaison >>roles). Based on that, i don't see the other 2 >>communities agreeing to transfer the IANA >>transdemarks (which is for all 3 operational >>communities) to PTI whose accountability mechanism is largely names based. >>Regards >> >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Greg Shatan >><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > wrote: >>Maarten, >> >>That is not my understanding of separation. If >>ICANN selects a new provider, that provider >>would take all of the assets of PTI (including >>the trademarks, under this scenario), so it >>could provide the IANA services. PTI would >>then be wound down and ultimately dissolved by >>ICANN. Recall that PTI is a controlled entity >>of ICANN and would remain so throughout. In >>this case, the IANA operations are separated from PTI. >> >>If PTI is actually separated (spun out) from >>ICANN so that it is no longer under ICANN >>control, it would be done to further separate >>the IANA Functions from ICANN and IANA would >>continue as a going concern (active business). >> >>Under no circumstances does PTI become >>separated from ICANN without continuing to >>serve as the IANA operator, yet continue to hold IANA-related assets. >> >>Greg >> >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Maarten Simon >><<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl> wrote: >>Hi Greg, >> >>I would like to respond to your suggestion: >> >>'An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>and practice. This also contributes to >>separability, since all of the IFO-related >>assets would be in a single entity.â >> >>If PTI is separated, ICANN will select a new >>IANA provider. Am I correct that if the IANA >>trademarks rest with PTI, we will than have to >>rename the services after the separation and >>they will not any longer be named the IANA services ? >> >>If that is correct, I rather keep the rights in ICANN. >> >>Best, >> >>Maarten >> >>From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >>Date: Wednesday 10 June 2015 21:06 >>To: manning <<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> >>Cc: "<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> >>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 >> >>ICANN is an appropriate owner of the IANA >>trademarks. PTI is also an appropriate owner >>of the IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust does >>not appear to be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. >> >>A trademark is an indicator of source or >>origin. The owner of a trademark should be the >>ultimate source of the goods and services >>offered under that trademark. In the most >>straightforward case, the trademark owner >>offers those goods and services themselves or >>through a subsidiary. The trademark owner can >>license the mark to third parties to offer >>goods and services under the mark; but, >>consistent with their status as the ultimate >>source, the trademark owner is required by law >>to exercise continuing quality controls over >>the goods and services offered by the licensee >>and the use of the trademark by the >>licensee. A trademark owner cannot merely >>"hold the asset" as CRISP proposed. Ownership >>of a trademark fundamentally involves being the >>âsource or originâ of the goods and >>services and fulfilling the âquality >>controlâ oversight role, among other things. >> >>Quality control generally involves approvals by >>the licensor of any potential new products or >>services, and approvals of any changes in >>products or services (what they are, how they >>are offered, methods and processes, etc.), as >>well as ongoing monitoring of quality. The >>benchmark typically is that licensee's level of >>quality should be at least as high as the goods >>and services offered by the licensor (i.e., the >>owner of the mark and the ultimate >>source/origin of the goods/services). This is >>all set forth in a trademark license between >>the licensee ans licensor. If a trademark >>license has no quality control provisions, or >>the quality control provisions are not adequate >>or not adequately exercised, the license may be >>deemed a ânaked license,â exposing the >>trademark to the risk of abandonment (loss of >>validity as a trademark, and loss of the right >>to claim ownership and usage rights of the >>mark). When a licensee uses a trademark, all >>goodwill (brand reputation) goes to the owner, >>not the licensee. The owner is the holder of that goodwill. >> >>I don't see how the IETF Trust makes legal >>sense as the owner of the IANA Trademarks. The >>IETF Trust is not and does not intend to be the >>ultimate source and origin of IANA >>services. Unlike copyrights and patents, >>trademarks can't be owned by administrators; >>they need to be owned by the source of the >>services. Further, the IETF Trust is clearly >>not granting ICANN the right to provide the >>IANA Services, so it is even more inappropriate >>for the IETF Trust to be the owner of the mark associated with those services. >> >>An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, >>rather than ICANN, own the IANA >>trademarks. This is actually a simpler >>solution and is consistent with trademark law >>and practice. This also contributes to >>separability, since all of the IFO-related assets would be in a single entity. >> >>If we assume for a moment that the IETF Trust >>were to own the IANA trademarks, significant issues arise. >> >>In a trademark license, the IETF Trust, as >>licensor, would have the power to terminate the >>license according to its terms (e.g., for >>material breach of the agreement, misuse of the >>trademark, etc.) or to decide not to renew the >>license, in which case ICANN would no longer >>have the right to use the IANA trademark in the >>provision of services. It would be >>inappropriate for the IETF Trust to have this >>power, without accountability to and oversight >>by the names and numbers communities. A >>mechanism would need to built for that. >> >>Quality control presents another challenge. In >>virtually all circumstances, a licensor >>exercises these quality control obligations >>through an employee or employees knowledgeable >>and capable of exercising quality control over >>the licensee and its services. .It may also be >>appropriate for the operational communities to >>be involved in quality control and other >>aspects of the license as well, especially >>since quality control and trademark usage >>guidelines can be changed from time to time, >>typically at the licensorâs discretion, and >>since the IETF is not in a position to exercise >>quality control in the names and numbers >>space. This may require amendment of the IETF >>Trust Agreement, as well as the drafting of a >>somewhat unusual trademark license. >> >>Furthermore, the IETF Trust would also be >>responsible for policing and enforcement of the >>trademark against third parties and for >>maintenance of trademark registrations. >> >>It is not clear how the IETF Trust intends to carry out any of these roles. >> >>Also, for the IETF Trust to become the owner of >>the IANA trademark, ICANN would need to assign >>all of its right, title and interest in and to >>the IANA trademark to the IETF Trust, along >>with all goodwill relating to the mark >>(typically, in exchange for good and valuable >>consideration). This may require a valuation >>of the IANA trademark and its associated >>goodwill, which in turn may have tax or other >>financial consequences for one or both parties. >> >>Finally, the IETF Trust, as such, may not be >>capable of owning the IANA Trademark, since the >>IETF Trust does not appear to be a âlegal >>entity.â If this is correct, the Trustees >>(in their role as Trustees) are the collective >>owners of the IANA Trademark (in trust for the >>IETF, as Beneficiaries of the IETF Trust), and >>would need to enter into the trademark license >>(again, in their role as Trustees of the >>Trust). This appears to be consistent with >>Section 9.5 of the Amended and Restated Trust >>Agreement and the ownership of the IETF >>trademarks (which are owned by âThe Trustees >>of the IETF Trustâ) in the USPTO >>database. (Oddly, this is inconsistent with >>the IETF General Trademark License (on the IETF >>Trust website) which states that the IETF Trust >>is the licensor of the IETF marks, and which >>also lacks appropriate quality control provisions.) >> >>Greg Shatan >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:18 AM, manning >><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >>Missed the attachment which now is attached! >> >>manning >><mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >>PO Box 12317 >>Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >><tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >> >>On 10June2015Wednesday, at 0:12, manning >><<mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 19 May 2015, the number community >> provided specific feedback regarding the need >> for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain >> (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). >> > >> > Did you notice that the most recent draft >> (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday >> morning specifically moves farther away from >> this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN >> rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? >> > >> > CWG email re new draft - -< >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-June/003650.html > >> > Draft Document - < >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e… >> > >> > >> > Proposed text in most recent document - >> > >> >> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, >> royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to >> use the IANA trademark and all related >> trademarks, and all applications and >> registrations therefor, for use in connection >> with PTIâs activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract. â >> > >> > this moves the draft farther away from the >> received comments, and would this make the >> ICGâs job of aligning the various proposals >> from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? >> > >> > It might be premature to go to BA with this >> as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. >> > >> > >> > manning >> > <mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com>bmanning(a)karoshi.com >> > PO Box 12317 >> > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >> > <tel:310.322.8102>310.322.8102 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list >> > <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >> >> >> >> >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Seun Ojedeji, >>Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>Mobile: <tel:%2B2348035233535>+2348035233535 >>alt email:<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng >>The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>CWG-Stewardship mailing list >><mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship >

2 1

Comments to Final Draft
by Greg Shatan June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

All: I've made a few changes to the Term Sheet section, including shortening the section on trademarks and putting it in brackets to further signify that it's an open point. Also made some formatting changes (including having the headers on every page). Greg

2 2

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] FW: Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

A few minutes late, but... In paragraph 125, page 24 of V4, I can live with the current wording about the optional Public Comment but meaningful AC/SO consultation. However, the wording change I requested to clarify that the BOTH the ccNSO and GNSO approval is needed was not made. ...triggered by a supermajority vote of each of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils ... should read ...triggered by a supermajority vote of BOTH of the ccNSO and GNSO Councils... (Caps added to highlight the change in this message. The "of" following "both" is probably not needed.) Alan At 09/06/2015 10:59 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: >Forwarding again to Client Committee. > >From: Grace Abuhamad ><<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> >Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:46 PM >To: Brenda Brewer ><<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>, >"<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Important: Final >Proposal for review until 23:59UTC on 10 June > >Dear all, > >During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and >final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made >live, and outstanding changes were noted as >action items (see notes below). The staff team >has reviewed the proposal and completed all >actions listed. Please note that Sidley will >provide a final review as well which includes >some work on the implementation text in Section >IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. > >With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a >final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC >tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the >intention of the review period is to do a >proofread and notify the group of any errors. >During this period of 26 hours, any statements >or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to >the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if >you are making a statement, please be sure to >identify whether you do so as a member on behalf >of a Chartering Organization, as an individual >representing a specific organization, or as an >individual with a personal remark/contribution. > >After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work >with staff to rectify any errors, update section >VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the >Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 >June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the >CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its >members and participants, to coalesce support >for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. >In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June >(one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. >These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the >broader community about the contents of the >final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 >in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of >sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship >work: ><https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. > >Thank you all for your great work and dedication >to the process. Please contact us if you have >any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. > >Best, >Gramika (Grace+Marika) > > >From: Brenda Brewer <<mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org>brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> >Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM >To: >"<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, >Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 > >[] > >Dear all, > >The notes, recordings and transcripts for the >CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are >available here: ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 > >Kind regards, >Brenda > > > > >Action Items > > > > > >Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" > >Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the >defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things > >Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" > >Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. > >Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble > >Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter > >Action: conform text to the defined terms used >in the rest of the Proposal, among other things > > > >Notes > > > > > >1. Opening Remarks >· A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. >· Following closure of this meeting, >staff will send final document to the CWG. >· CWG will then have 24h to notify the >group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen >issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE >· Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. > >2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses > >Can expect a final version to be circulated in >the next 24h. Staff is working on >consistency-checking across the responses. The >document is frozen as of 1 June. > >3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal > >The letter and responses from ICANN are posted >on Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. > >Staff have included the responses in Section IV >(and included an Annex to for the Finance information). > >4. Last Review of Final Proposal > >On screen now is version 5. The difference >between the previous version and the latest is >that the Chairs took some time to review which >items were still open and which had been >resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key >outstanding issues. This latest version also >includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. > >Paragraph 108: Change the wording from >"ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the >definition in the footnote. ICANN has control >and ownership of PTI and the implementation >documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. > >Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" > >Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. > >Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from >both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. > >Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 > >Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are >included in annex and summary is included in the section now. > >Action: conform text to the defined terms used >in the rest of the Proposal, among other things > >Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" > >Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. > >Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table > >Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble > >Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter > >Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg > >5. Overall Timeline / Milestones > > a. Communications > > b. Webinars on 11 June > > c. Sessions at ICANN 53 > >6. AOB > > a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement > > b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call > > c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June > >7. Closing Remarks > >After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with >comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Cwg-client mailing list >Cwg-client(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

2 1

Fwd: [client com] CWG Proposal - Sidley Comments
by Greg Shatan June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

I am forwarding Sidley's comments to the full list. Greg Shatan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:35 PM Subject: [client com] CWG Proposal - Sidley Comments To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear Client Committee, Attached are our changes to the revised CWG proposal. These are primarily minor, clean up edits. We have attached a tracked changes version (with our changes layered on top of the current changes) and a redline with only our changes reflected. Best regards, Holly, Sharon and Josh *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP* +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. **************************************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Cwg-client mailing list Cwg-client(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client

1 0

Important: Final Proposal for review until 23:59 UTC on 10 June
by Grace Abuhamad June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Dear all, During our meeting today, we had our 3rd and final reading of the Proposal. Changes were made live, and outstanding changes were noted as action items (see notes below). The staff team has reviewed the proposal and completed all actions listed. Please note that Sidley will provide a final review as well which includes some work on the implementation text in Section IV and the Term Sheet in Annex S. With this, the CWG-Stewardship now enters into a final review period that lasts until 23:59 UTC tomorrow (10 June). As noted on the call, the intention of the review period is to do a proofread¹ and notify the group of any errors. During this period of 26 hours, any statements or comments on the Proposal may also be sent to the group. As the Chairs noted on the call, if you are making a statement, please be sure to identify whether you do so as a member on behalf of a Chartering Organization, as an individual representing a specific organization, or as an individual with a personal remark/contribution. After 23:59 UTC on 10 June, the Chairs will work with staff to rectify any errors, update section VI.C. regarding statements, and deliver the Proposal to the Chartering Organizations on 11 June. Our call on 11 June will focus on how the CWG-Stewardship does its engagement, through its members and participants, to coalesce support for the Proposal among Chartering Organizations. In addition, there are two webinars on 11 June (one at 06:00 UTC and one at 13:00 UTC): https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en. These webinars aim to provide a briefing to the broader community about the contents of the final proposal. Finally, as we head into ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, please refer to the schedule of sessions that relate to the CWG-Stewardship work: https://community.icann.org/x/EJg0Aw. Thank you all for your great work and dedication to the process. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the process or administration over the next 48h. Best, Gramika (Grace+Marika) From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA #58 9 June 2015 Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting # 58 on 9 June 2015 are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53778032 Kind regards, Brenda Action Items Paragraph 108: Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 134: Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Notes 1. Opening Remarks · A big thanks to all who contributed to edits. · Following closure of this meeting, staff will send final document to the CWG. · CWG will then have 24h to notify the group of any errors. Intention is not to reopen issues, but to focus on proofing --> DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE · Chairs will transmit to SO/ACs on 11 June with covering note. 2. Finalizing the Review Tool & Responses Can expect a final version to be circulated in the next 24h. Staff is working on consistency-checking across the responses. The document is frozen as of 1 June. 3. Update on questions to ICANN Finance & Legal The letter and responses from ICANN are posted on Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw. <https://community.icann.org/x/7Jk0Aw> Staff have included the responses in Section IV (and included an Annex to for the Finance information). 4. Last Review of Final Proposal On screen now is version 5. The difference between the previous version and the latest is that the Chairs took some time to review which items were still open and which had been resolved. Tried to focus CWG on the key outstanding issues. This latest version also includes the DT-A annex which has now been included. Paragraph 108: Change the wording from "ringfence" to "isolate" and remove the definition in the footnote. ICANN has control and ownership of PTI and the implementation documents will assure against further transfer out of assets. Action: In document text, remove --> "as it is customary" Paragraph 121/ Footnote 11: footnote is satisfactory. Paragraph 125: make clear "supermajority from both" ccNSO and GNSO. Also including the CSC as part of the remit. Paragraph 128: covered by resolution in paragraph 121 Paragraph 134: SLEs discussion -- principles are included in annex and summary is included in the section now. Action: conform text to the defined terms used in the rest of the Proposal, among other things Paragraph 155: Action: remove capitals in "standing committee" Section IV: Action: Sidley to provide text on PTI implementation. Annex G: edit to the Remedial Action Procedures table Annex H: Action: remove escalation paragraph and preamble Annex J: Action: edits to #3 should be cross-checked with CSC Charter Term Sheet: staff to revise with comments from Sidley and Greg 5. Overall Timeline / Milestones a. Communications b. Webinars on 11 June c. Sessions at ICANN 53 6. AOB a. Thursday 11 June -- 1 hour call about CWG engagement b. Canceling Tuesday 16 June call c. Client Committee on Friday 12 June 7. Closing Remarks After proposal is sent, 24h to respond with comments or statements DUE AT 23:59 UTC on 10 JUNE

4 4

Agenda for meeting #59
by Grace Abuhamad June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Dear all, Here below is agenda for meeting #59 (11 June at 11:00 UTC) 1. Opening Remarks 2. Transfer of Final Proposal 3. Communication Points 4. ICANN 53 -- Buenos Aires 5. Beyond ICANN 53 As a reminder, the Webinars are scheduled for tomorrow at 06:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC. Please send reminders out to your communities: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-06-03-en Based on the requests received for language support, we are providing French and Chinese interpretation on the 06:00 UTC webinar, and French and Spanish on the 13:00 UTC webinar. Best, Grace

1 0

CWG -'Final Proposal'
by Chris Disspain June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, As a response to Grace’s call for final comments and submissions, I would like to offer these observations – both as a CWG participant and on behalf of auDA. Firstly, thank you all for the tremendous amount of time, effort and commitment you have all dedicated to this unprecedented process. Particular thanks to Jonathan and Lise for their exemplary leadership and incredible stamina. Thanks also to the many ICANN support staff who, no doubt, have not had a “quiet day” since some time in 2014. Plaudits aside, I would like to welcome this most recent “final draft” proposal. I note that auDA has previously submitted two formal comments to the CWG’s public consultations, which contained both supportive statements and constructive criticism. The way in which community criticisms, in particular, were acknowledged and actioned by the group is an excellent exemplar of the multi-stakeholder model in action. In our response to the 22 April public consultation round, auDA noted a number of concerns including: - a lack of clarity regarding separation mechanisms, - unclear jurisdiction, scope and structure for the PTI, - triggers and processes for “special” IANA Function Reviews, - composition of the IFRT, - empowerment of “direct customers” of IANA, and most notably, - the legal structure of the PTI and its relationship with ICANN. I welcome the CWG’s response to these and other comments, including: - clarification of separation mechanisms / processes, including the inclusion of a “Separation Cross-community Working Group”, - additional detail regarding how a “special” IFR review would be triggered, and - refinements to the IFRT structure, including an extra ccNSO participant and a provision that the group will not be allowed to take a decision on an exclusively “ccTLD issue” if it doesn’t concur with the position of the group’s ccTLD members. Finally, auDA notes that the CWG has determined to propose a contractual relationship between the PTI and ICANN. While this does not directly accord with our original position, we acknowledge that the CWG’s view is supported by the majority of the community and welcome the resultant establishment of the PTI as a “controlled affiliate” of ICANN, established as a Public Benefit Corporation in California. While there are still a number of details to be resolved, auDA is pleased to express support for the CWG’s final draft proposal, both on this list and at our upcoming discussions in Buenos Aires. Regards, Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0