Could someone shed light on the questions posed by Manal below? Thanks, Alissa Begin forwarded message:
From: Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG Date: July 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM PDT To: Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@LStAmour.org>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group <internal-cg@ianacg.org>
I also don't understand what's the timeline of this and more importantly what's the fallback scenario in case this requires many hours and turn to be out of budget .. Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:37 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
Hi Milton,
I don't understand it either, and that would be a good question for the CWG.
Lynn
On Jul 15, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I do not understand this outcome. I can understand asking lawyers to figure out alternative ways to do what the CRISP team suggested (namely, make the trademarks and domain independent of any specific IANA functions operator), but the first two options are not, in fact, options, because they don't meet that criterion. In other words, why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems?
From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:27 AM To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG
The CWG had a call last week and one of the action items resulting from the call was as follows:
Action item: Client committee to scope the work concerning IPR based on CWG-Stewardship discussion and will ask for an indication from Sidley on hours/ budget involved to undertake this work. Client committee to instruct Sidley to talk to ICANN legal to obtain further insight and background to the IPR issue (possibly with involvement of other members of the CWG) - also consider involving other communities.
The client committee consists of CWG participants and legal advisors from their independent law firm, Sidley. CWG co-chair Lise Fuhr has since taken the action: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-client/2015-July/000252.html>. As you can see, the CWG is asking Sidley for a quote of how many hours of work Sidley would require to evaluate three scenarios: "IANA's IPR either: (i) stays with ICANN; (ii) goes to PTI; or (iii) goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust)." My understanding is that once they receive the quote they will decide whether to ask Sidley to do this work and whether to use the output of that work to help form a CWG position as regards the IANA IPR.
Folks who have been participating in the CWG should correct the above if it's wrong.
Alissa
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org