August 2015 - CWG-Stewardship

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by Greg Shatan Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

Julie, I think you're right. As this was passed on to the whole CWG and CCWG without any prior review by any subcommittees, it should be considered subject to review and comment. Greg Shatan On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Julie Hammer <julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi Leon, > > Many thanks for sharing this matrix. One thing that struck me when having > a quick look through it was that Sidley have listed at Item 2 (d) the > following as Subject Matter for a new Fundamental Bylaw: > > "Requirement that the ICANN community approve or veto the IANA Budget > after it has been approved by the ICANN Board but before it has come into > effect." > In my understanding, the proposed power was to consider and reject (or > veto) the IANA Budget, but there should be no requirement for the ICANN > Community to come together and actually approve the IANA budget. I had > not thought that the Community Mechanism was intended to be used for such a > purpose (ie approving strategic plans, operating plans or budgets). > > I believe the relevant paragraph from the CCWG 2nd draft report is para > 381 on page 58: > > 1. > > 381 Accordingly, this new power would give the community the ability > to consider strategic and operating plans and budgets (both ICANN general > and, separately, with respect to the budget for the IANA Functions) after > they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and > reject them. The rejection could be of the proposed ICANN Budget or the > IANA Budget, or of a proposed ICANN-wide strategic or operating plan. The > petition would state which Budget or plan was being subject to veto. A > separate petition is required for each Budget or plan being challenged. > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I don’t think the word > ‘approve’ should appear in 2 (d) in the Sidley matrix. > > Cheers, Julie > > > On 12 Aug 2015, at 1:56 am, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx');>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am forwarding this matrix that the CWG is working on as it is of the > interest of this group as well and to help us continue shaping our work > forward. > > The matrix is intended to help identify those bylaws that, from the scope > of the CWG, would need to be considered fundamental. This, of course, is > independent from the work we need to do but provides an example on what we > can begin crafting ourselves. > > If you want to keep being in the matrix, swallow the blue pill. If you > want to work on shaping the matrix, swallow the red pill. (geek joke) > > Best regards, > > > León > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *"Flanagan, Sharon" <sflanagan(a)sidley.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan(a)sidley.com');>> > *Asunto: **[client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix* > *Fecha: *11 de agosto de 2015 9:43:05 GMT-5 > *Para: *Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-client(a)icann.org');>> > > > Dear All, > > Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes > that relate to CWG’s final proposal. > > Could you please forward to the CWG? > > Thanks > > *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* > Partner > > *Sidley Austin LLP*555 California Street > Suite 2000 > San Francisco, CA 94104 > +1.415.772.1271 > sflanagan(a)sidley.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan(a)sidley.com');> > www.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. > > > **************************************************************************************************** > > <209588099_1.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > Cwg-client mailing list > Cwg-client(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Cwg-client(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

7 7

Upcoming Q4 Stakeholder Call on 20 August at 14:00 UTC
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Dear all, As you know, ICANN has an Quarterly Stakeholder Calls. This Q4 call is next week on 20 August at 14:00 UTC (our next CWG-Stewardship meeting follows at 17:00 UTC the same day). The agenda and registration information is available here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-30-en. Even if you are not able to attend the call live, it¹s good to register so you get sent the direct link for the recording later. Best, Grace

1 0

FW: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
by Jonathan Robinson Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

All, Please see below for message received yesterday from Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno (respectively Chair and Vice-Chair of The CRISP Team) Jonathan ----- Dear Jonathan, Lise and CWG members, The CRISP Team have started sharing observations on the legal input from Sidely. Once we have completed summarising our obervation, we would like to share it with the CWG, together with any general observation on IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org domain. We acknowledge the suggested way forward discussed at the CWG call on Thursday 6 August, which was shared by Jonathan and Lise. We will discuss this suggestion as well and will get back to you through Jonathan and Lise if we have any feedback. Izumi Okutani & Nurani Nimpuno Chair, Vice-Chair, The CRISP Team ----- On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > All, > > Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week. > In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion. > Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit. > > In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs: > > 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation. > 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible. > 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. > This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities. > My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly. > > We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly. > Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input. > > Best wishes, > > > > > Jonathan & Lise > > >

7 9

CWG reply to SAC072
by Lise Fuhr Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

Dear Patrik, On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship, I send our reply to your questions in the SAC072. The replies are placed in the executive summary and are written in italic. If you or other members of SSAC have any questions please dont hesitate to contact me or Jonathan. Please share the reply with SSAC. Thank you. Best regards, Lise

2 1

Fwd: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix
by Greg Shatan Aug. 11, 2015

Aug. 11, 2015

All: I am forwarding to the CWG-Stewardship the "bylaws matrix" prepared by Sidley Austin. Best regards, Greg Shatan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Flanagan, Sharon <sflanagan(a)sidley.com> Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:43 AM Subject: [client com] ICANN Bylaws Matrix To: Client Committee <cwg-client(a)icann.org> Dear All, Attached is a draft matrix summarizing the proposed ICANN bylaw changes that relate to CWG’s final proposal. Could you please forward to the CWG? Thanks *SHARON* *FLANAGAN* Partner *Sidley Austin LLP *555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan(a)sidley.com www.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

Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions
by Grace Abuhamad Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

Dear all, Original link: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-en Volume 9: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions- en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-e n#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-e n#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-e n#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-e n#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions-e n#> A major milestone reached as two key proposals open for public comment The transition of IANA's stewardship is now another step nearer as two key proposals are opened for public comment: * The Consolidated IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal by the ICG * The 2nd Draft Report on Work Stream 1 Recommendations by the CCWG-Accountability The final version of both these proposals will eventually be submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors, who will transfer them to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/> ). More information on these proposals, and how you can comment on their contents, is below. Consolidated IANA stewardship transition proposal now open for public comment On 31 July, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG <http://www.ianacg.org/> ) announced the start of the public comment period <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> for the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> . The proposal consists of the three proposals that have already reached consensus among the Domain Names, Numbering Resources and Protocol Parameters communities, as well as a report by the ICG, which includes an assessment of whether the three proposals: * Were developed using open and inclusive community processes, and whether they achieved consensus; * Are complete and clear; * Are compatible and interoperable, provide appropriate and properly supported accountability mechanisms, and are workable; and * Together meet the NTIA's criteria <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition -key-internet-domain-name-functions> . The ICG notes that as the proposals have already undergone extensive public comment and discussion <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/#completedcommentperiods> amongst the three operational communities, this public comment period is focused on how the three proposals work together as a whole and how it fares against the criteria established by NTIA for the transition. The proposal will be available for public comment for 40 days. Following community input during the comment period, the ICG will decide whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal. The proposal will be available shortly in all six official United Nations (UN) languages and Portuguese, but is currently only available in English <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> . The news release about the proposal, however, is available now in these seven languages, with all translations linked from the English version <https://www.ianacg.org/news-release-icg-seeking-public-input-on-key-interne t-governance/> . Key links * IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop osal-EN.pdf> 199 pages * Call for public comments <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> including 12 questions about specific issues the ICG is seeking feedback on * Archive of public comments received <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal -public-archive-of-submitted-comments/> How to submit a public comment You can comment on the proposal, taking into account the ICG's 12 questions <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/#callforcomment> , by 8 September 2015, 23:59 UTC (convert to your time zone <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+proposal+publi c+comment+closes&iso=20150908T235959&p1=%3A> ). Comments can be submitted in one of two ways: * By using the online form <https://comments.ianacg.org/form> After you have submitted the form, you will receive an automatically generated email asking you to click a link to confirm your submission. Your comments will then be posted to the archive of public comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr1 5/> . * By sending an email to public-comments(a)ianacg.org You may wish to use this template <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/public-input-template-EN.docx> for your response. After submitting your comments you will receive two emails: the first confirms receipt of your email; the second confirms your comments have been posted to the comments archive <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal -public-archive-of-submitted-comments/> . To help better understand the contents and context of the draft proposal, you may wish to join one of thetwo following webinars <https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t o-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment/> live: * 6 August, 19:00 20:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Webinar+1&iso= 20150806T19&ah=1&am=30> ) * 7 August, 11:00 12:30 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ICG+Webinar+2&iso= 20150807T11&ah=1&am=30> ) The webinars will also be live interpreted in the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and Portuguese and the recording posted shortly afterward. The transcript will also be translated and posted after the webinars. CCWG-Accountability On 3 August, the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A ccountability> ) released its 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> . Since the first version <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos al-with-annexes-04may15-en.pdf> of the proposal was released on 4 May <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20 15-05-04-en> , the CCWG-Accountability has taken a very open and agile approach to finding creative solutions to problems identified in previous iterations of their proposals. The second version also addresses a number of outstanding issues not fully fleshed out in the first draft. The most significant changes between the two drafts are: * Mechanism to empower the ICANN community The mechanism has undergone significant changes: in the May draft, there were two alternatives presented member model and delegate model; following feedback received during the public comment period, the CCWG-Accountability brainstormed alternatives at ICANN53 in June, resulting in the development of an Empowered SO/AC model. Resulting from subsequent discussions at a face-to-face meeting in Paris in July, this second draft proposal presents the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model. * Four additional stress tests The new stress tests have been added following suggestions contained in the Larry Strickling's 16 June blog post <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann -meeting-argentina> on the NTIA website. * Refinements to key elements contained in the first draft These refinements include: * ICANN Mission & Core Values * Removal of individual ICANN Board Directors and recall of the entire Board * Independent Review Process * Community power regarding ICANN's budget * Work plan for Work Stream 2 (including adding a commitment to human rights in the ICANNBylaws) * Implementation plan for Work Stream 1 The proposal also includes "minority views", which are statements by CCWG-Accountability members and participants who object to recommendations contained in the report. Additional minority views received after 1 August will be available here <https://community.icann.org/x/6oxCAw> . The proposal will be available for public comment for 40 days. After the public comment period closes, the CCWG-Accountability aims to finalize its Work Stream 1 proposal for submission to its Chartering Organizations (GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, ASO and SSAC) and then to the ICANN Board of Directors during or shortly after ICANN54 in Dublin. The proposal will then be submitted to the NTIA, along with the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. After Work Stream 1 is completed, the CCWG-Accountability will focus on Work Stream 2, which consists of accountability enhancements that do not need to be in place for the IANA stewardship transition to occur. Key links * 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre am-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf> 180 pages * Graphical Supplement <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53783460/XPL_CCWG%20Propos al_Visual%20Summary_FINAL.pptx?version=2&modificationDate=1438709903524&api= v2> [19 pages of pictorial representations of the main concepts included in the second draft] * Call for public comments <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> * Archive of public comments received <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/> How to submit a public comment You can comment on the proposal by 12 September 2015, 23:59 UTC (convert to your time zone <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+public+comment+period+ends&iso=20150912T2359&p1=1440> ). * Consider the CCWG-Accountability's three questions when developing your submissions: * Do you agree that the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability? * Are there elements of this proposal that would prevent you from approving it transmission to Chartering Organizations? * Does this proposal meet the requirements set forward by the CWG-Stewardship? * Send an email to comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15(a)icann.org. To help better understand the contents and context of the draft proposal, you may wish to join one of thetwo following webinars <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681> live: * 4 August, 19:00 21:00 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar+1&iso=20150804T19&p1=1440&ah=2> ) * 7 August, 7:00 9:00 UTC (time zone converter here <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG-Accountabilit y+Webinar+2&iso=20150807T07&p1=%3A&ah=2> ) The webinars will also be live interpreted in the six UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) and Portuguese and the recording posted shortly afterward. The transcript will also be translated and posted after the webinars. IANA stewardship in the news 4 Aug 2015Netzverwaltung ICANN: Finaler Entwurf für künftige Aufsicht der DNS-Rootzone, Heise Online [DE] 3 Aug 2015ICANN posts proposal to end US oversight of Internet <http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/icann-posts -proposal-to-end-us-oversight-of-internet/articleshow/48335469.cms> , Agence France-Presses (AFP) Especialistas em Internet enviam esboço para EUA cederem supervisão de domínios <http://br.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idBRKCN0Q82C920150803> , Reuters Brasil [PT] Keeping Internet open and free <http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/keeping-internet-open- and-free-low-jia-rong> , The Malaysian Insider [EN] 30 Jul 2015How Congress Can Halt Government Control of the Internet <http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/30/how-congress-can-halt-government-control- of-the-internet/> , The Daily Signal [EN] 20 Jul 2015IANA TRANSITION e ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY: De onde viemos e para onde vamos? <http://observatoriodainternet.br/post/iana-transition-e-icann-accountabilit y-de-onde-viemos-e-para-onde-vamos> , Observatório da Internet no Brasil [PT] Upcoming key dates 4 Aug 2015Webinar <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681> : CCWG-Accountability 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) proposal 6 Aug 2015Webinar <https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t o-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment/> : ICG IANA Stewardship Transition proposal 7 Aug 2015Webinar <https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t o-host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment/> : ICG IANA Stewardship Transition proposal Webinar <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681> : CCWG-Accountability 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) proposal 8 Sep 2015Public Comment Period on ICG's IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per iod/> closes 12 Sep 2015Public Comment Period for CCWG-Accountability's 2nd draft of ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en> closes 18-19 Sep 2015ICG Face-to-Face Meeting <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-face-to-face-meeting-for-18-19-septemb er/> , Los Angeles 30 Sep-15 Oct 2015CCWG-Accountability's 2nd and final proposal (Work Stream 1) presented to ALAC, ASO,ccNSO, GAC and GNSO for their approval. 18-22 Oct 2015ICANN 54 <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54> inc. ICG Face-to-Face meeting and presentation of proposals for IANAstewardship and ICANN accountability enhancements (Work Stream 1) to the ICANNBoard for subsequent transmission to the NTIA. Week 1, Nov 2015ICANN Board transmits IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability (Work Stream 1) proposals to NTIA. You can play a role in IANA's future Anyone can participate in discussions about the future of IANA's stewardship and ICANN accountability. For information on joining CCWG-Accountability, contact accountability-staff(a)icann.org. Compiled on behalf of ICANN by Samantha Dickinson | 7 August 2015

1 0

Comments from Richard Hill
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 7, 2015

Aug. 7, 2015

CWG, The ICG has received the following from Richard Hill: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html> According to the process the ICG uses to handle forum comments <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Community-Comments-Handling-1May…>, the ICG assesses whether the comments are to be investigated by the operational community itself, and if we draw that conclusion we make the OC aware of the comment and ask whether the OC has any input. So we would appreciate input you may have no later than August 10. The ICG has also reviewed these questions in light of the CWG charter and process, and we would be happy to send our thoughts if helpful to the CWG. Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

6 8

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

I have no particular stake on the outcome of all this. However, I would find it useful to have a clear and unambiguous statement from the Trustees on behalf of the IETF Trust saying that the Trust has the will and resources to adequately police and enforce the IANA trademark. The proposal was made in the CRISP proposal and accepted in the IANAPLAN proposal, Although a number of the Trustees participated in creating the latter document, we really do need a formal statement of the Trust that they are willing and able, if not eager, to take this on. There is no way that ICANN should enter into an agreement to give up the TM without such assurances. Alan At 05/08/2015 03:11 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >This memo shows a lack of understanding of the policy issues >involved in determining the status of the IANA trademarks. For >example, under disadvantages of ICANN continuing to hold the >trademark, it fails to note that ICANN is the owner of the PTI >subsidiary and thus would be in a position to interfere with any >attempt to transfer the IFO away from ICANN's controlled subsidiary >to another IFO. The memo seems to be laboring under the risible >assumption that ICANN is a neutral party with respect to >administration of the IFO. > >The memo also fails to note that the numbers community objects just >as strongly to ICANN retaining the trademarks as to PTI retaining them. > >The assessments of the alleged difficulties involved in IETF Trust >holding the trademarks seem inflated to me. Basically the opinion >erects a strawman (what if you have to create a new trust) and >spends most of its time dealing with that rather than the actual proposal. > >As I noted before this memo was commissioned, legal opinions can >clarify what the options are, but they are not a substitute for real >engagement with, debate on, and achievement of consensus around the >merits of the different options. We have yet to achieve consensus >on the status of the IANA trademarks and frankly we will not achieve >one based on this memo. > >--MM > >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad >Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 11:37 AM >To: cwg-Stewardship(a)icann.org >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo > >Dear all, >This legal input was sent to the Client Committee earlier today. >Best, >Grace > >From: ><<mailto:cwg-client-bounces@icann.org>cwg-client-bounces(a)icann.org> >on behalf of Sharon Flanagan ><<mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>sflanagan(a)sidley.com> >Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:05 AM >To: Client Committee <<mailto:cwg-client@icann.org>cwg-client(a)icann.org> >Subject: [client com] IPR Memo > >Dear All, > >Attached is a memo on the IPR issue under the three ownership >structures. Please let us know if you have any questions or would >like to discuss. > >Best regards, > >Holly, Josh and Sharon > >SHARON FLANAGAN >Partner > >Sidley Austin LLP >+1.415.772.1271 ><mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com>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-Stewardship mailing list >CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

8 21

On draft reply to SSAC
by Andrew Sullivan Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

Hi, In the item 3.b. question 2 draft response, it isn't clear to me how the first sentence responds to the question. It seems to me that the answer can start with "Since the standing committee makes recommendations…," continuing to the end. (This has the happy consequence also of removing the proposed make up of the committee from consideration. If any of those bodies were to decline the invitation to participate that premise would be weaker. But if we can just discard the premise in the argument without harm, then we might as well do so.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 3

Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] IPR Memo
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 6, 2015

Aug. 6, 2015

Milton, you are free to assume anything you want about my mindset. That does not make it so. Alan At 05/08/2015 06:28 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >-----Original Message----- > > > If I were ICANN and about to hand over the TM, I would want to > see something > > stronger than just "hold", but perhaps to lawyers that is > sufficient to imply will > > police and defend. > >Alan, you seem to be starting from the assumption that ICANN is the >natural and appropriate steward of the marks, and IETF Trust must >somehow prove its worthiness of handling them. But I have not seen >an argument from you, or from anyone on this list, as to why ICANN >is a more appropriate steward compared to the IETF, which invented >the term and the functions of IANA and has referred to it thousands >of times in its RFCs going back decades. I don't think there is any >evidence that the integrity of the IANA trademarks are important to >ICANN or essential to its core mission of policy development for >names. I think there is a very obvious argument as to why the >concept and identity of IANA are essential to the mission and >activities of the IETF. On the merits, the burden of proof lies on >ICANN to show why it should be holding the marks at all. At the very >least, let's apply the same standard to ICANN that we are applying >to the IETF Trust. > >--MM

2 1