Good afternoon: With regard to the proposal relating to the IPR associated with IANA, may I make the following observations and suggestions: (a) the status quo has a good deal of support among the community. The prospect of transferring any IPR anywhere in present circumstances probably does not enjoy broad community consensus. (b) Regarding the proposed alternatives: - transferring any IPR to PTI at this stage appears hazardous. That entity does not even exist as yet. - To the best of my knowledge, the IETF Trust is but a shadow of the Internet Society itself, which already holds IPR on behalf of IETF. (I am sure that a more precise account would be forthcoming from ISOC, Reston.) However, it would seem to me that, transferring IANA IPR to ISOC, would be perceived in the rest of the community as giving disproportionate weight to the Protocol community, whereas it is the Names and the Numbers who are actually most directly concerned by the day-to-day operation of IANA. ( c) the question of transferring IANA IPR has arisen as a by-product of the argument about separating IANA from ICANN now, or in the future. Having followed that debate with some care, I conclude that option does not benefit from broad community support. Indeed, separating IANA from ICANN, a fortiori disaggregating IANA among the three users would require significant stress-testing of the proposition, in and of itself. (d) As I have pointed out on previous occasions, all those SO and AC who are primarily concerned with global oversight, transparency and fair conditions of competition, could not logically endorse separation or disaggregation as that would unduly and excessively augment the costs of necessary oversight. Regards CW On 21 Jul 2015, at 14:12, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
Following on from the Client Committee and CWG meetings on 9 July, the quote below was received. The Client Committee has reviewed this quote and now proposes to instruct Sidley to commence with this work as soon as possible.
Please note that the ICG is moving rapidly towards publication of its work for public comment and, if the CWG is to provide informed and effective input on the “IPR Issue”, we do need Sidley’s input and advice to us as soon as possible.
Thank-you,
Jonathan & Lise
From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33 To: cwg-client@icann.org; Jonathan Robinson; 'Lise Fuhr'; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings Cc: Gregory, Holly; Hofheimer, Joshua T. Subject: RE: Request for a quote on two tasks
Dear All,
With respect to Item #1 below, we would expect the stress test and assessment of the IPR issue under the three scenarios below would require approximately $35,000-40,000 of legal work. This would be for our analysis and review and would not include time spent on follow up calls or iterations of the document.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Best regards, Sharon
SHARON FLANAGAN Partner
Sidley Austin LLP +1.415.772.1271 sflanagan@sidley.com
From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM To: Flanagan, Sharon Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; cwg-client@icann.org Subject: Request for a quote on two tasks
Dear Sharon,
As we talked about during the Client Committee call last Thursday, we have discussed with the CWG Sidley's eventual advice regarding two issues – IPR and a matrix of the bylaws. The CWG agreed to request Sidley to give an estimate of the hours needed in order to perform the two tasks:
1. IPR - To conduct a stress-test approach regarding the IANA IPR issue. This includes four aspects:
a. Sidley should consult with ICANN Legal in order to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue. This can be done with the involvement of other members of the CWG – like the Client Committee. Furthermore CWG is considering involving other communities in this fact-gathering exercise.
b. There appear to be three possible scenarios. IANA’s IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust).
c. What risks exist with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. These need to be evaluated in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable.
d. There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority," (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
2. Matrix of the ICANN bylaws:
Create a matrix to help determine where the bylaws that are needed in relation to the CWG proposal belong. Identify which bylaws Sidley would suggest that the CWG should draft (be in charge of having drafted), and which bylaws drafted by the CCWG need to be signed off by the CWG. There will be a part of the bylaws that are being prepared by the CCWG that have no direct relationship to the CWG's work and these constitute a third category.
After receiving the quote, the Client Committee will evaluate the estimates of the two tasks and get back to you.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
Best regards,
Lise
**************************************************************************************************** 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship