FW: [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues
All, We have held two length meetings this week to deal with the various issues around the IANA IPR. Late today (at least in Europe), the three operational community IPR group has reviewed a set of proposed key compromises (attached) proposed in order to deal with IANA IPR being housed in the IETF Trust. We will review these key points in the appropriate section of the agenda tomorrow and hopefully make it clear why and how these have been arrived at. Thank-you, Jonathan (together with Greg & Lise who are the other two CWG representatives in the IANA IPR group) From: Jorge Contreras [mailto:contreraslegal@att.net] Sent: 03 August 2016 01:37 To: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues Colleagues, As promised during yesterday's conference call, Josh and I have discussed some of the the legal "sticking points" in the IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement. The attached document reflects our joint proposal to resolve these issues in a manner that, we hope, will be satisfactory to all of the parties. We look forward to discussing these points during tomorrow's call, along with any other issues that the parties wish to raise. Best regards, Jorge Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal@att.net <mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
Thanks for this share Jonathan and thanks to everyone that worked on this. Bullet point 2 of termination agreement and the CCG consultation process summary (item 5) seem to have addressed my concerns. That said, on bullet point 3 under "maintenance of IPR"section, I think it may be neater for the licensee (ICANN) to always be the one requesting new addition/making payments. Secondly (not a lawyer) it's not yet clear how new registrations gets licenced to the licensee i.e will it be automatic or via certain process. I expect that is going to be addressed in the main document drafting. Looking forward to see the actual wordings to be inline with that summary. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Aug 2016 11:05 p.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
We have held two length meetings this week to deal with the various issues around the IANA IPR.
Late today (at least in Europe), the three operational community IPR group has reviewed a set of proposed key compromises (attached) proposed in order to deal with IANA IPR being housed in the IETF Trust.
We will review these key points in the appropriate section of the agenda tomorrow and hopefully make it clear why and how these have been arrived at.
Thank-you,
Jonathan (together with Greg & Lise who are the other two CWG representatives in the IANA IPR group)
*From:* Jorge Contreras [mailto:contreraslegal@att.net] *Sent:* 03 August 2016 01:37 *To:* iana-ipr@nro.net *Subject:* [Iana-ipr] IANA IPR - Proposed resolution of selected legal issues
Colleagues,
As promised during yesterday’s conference call, Josh and I have discussed some of the the legal “sticking points” in the IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement.
The attached document reflects our joint proposal to resolve these issues in a manner that, we hope, will be satisfactory to all of the parties.
We look forward to discussing these points during tomorrow’s call, along with any other issues that the parties wish to raise.
Best regards,
Jorge
Jorge L. Contreras
Contreras Legal Strategy LLC
1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710
Washington, DC 20036
contreraslegal@att.net
The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, Full disclosure: I'm a Trustee and involved in the negotiations that way. On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That said, on bullet point 3 under "maintenance of IPR"section, I think it may be neater for the licensee (ICANN) to always be the one requesting new addition/making payments.
Could you say why? The Trust is supposed to be the owner of these marks. It seems a little odd to me that some other party would be doing that work. (I'm also pretty dubious about the value of all these registrations, anyway.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hello Andrew, I am particularly referring to the following section: "The IETF Trust reserves the right to require the Licensee or the requesting OC to pay out of pocket costs for any additional registrations, which will be owned by the Trust." Considering that the COs already remunerate the licensee in one way or the other for IANA services, I thought it might be neater for the licensee[ICANN] to be the one handling any out of pocket cost for new registrations instead of having COs deal with the trust directly on that. ICANN may however highlight those extra costs to the CO. Like for instance i think the numbers agreement provides for such extra costs (with limits). No doubt the Trust should be the one performing the act of any new registrations but I was addressing the payment part. Which I believe is what that section seem to be referring to. That said, I do not know what the details of this registration entail and that's why I also asked a follow-up on how those new registrations take usage effect for the licensee. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Aug 2016 2:04 a.m., "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
Full disclosure: I'm a Trustee and involved in the negotiations that way.
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:45:52AM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That said, on bullet point 3 under "maintenance of IPR"section, I think it may be neater for the licensee (ICANN) to always be the one requesting new addition/making payments.
Could you say why? The Trust is supposed to be the owner of these marks. It seems a little odd to me that some other party would be doing that work. (I'm also pretty dubious about the value of all these registrations, anyway.)
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:36:23AM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
"The IETF Trust reserves the right to require the Licensee or the requesting OC to pay out of pocket costs for any additional registrations, which will be owned by the Trust."
Considering that the COs already remunerate the licensee in one way or the other for IANA services, I thought it might be neater for the licensee[ICANN] to be the one handling any out of pocket cost for new registrations instead of having COs deal with the trust directly on that.
I see. Well, this bit is really an attempt to protect the Trust from a whole bunch of requests to register things. So who bears the cost is part of the point: if you want 1000 new mark registrations all over the world, then you will have to do the cost-benefit analysis of the value because you'll pay the costs. Otherwise, the incentives are misaligned. To be clear, while I am a Trustee I'm not speaking for it here. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
… a whole bunch of requests to register things.
But all the registrations will be based on RFCs. Correct? CW On 04 Aug 2016, at 13:50, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:36:23AM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
"The IETF Trust reserves the right to require the Licensee or the requesting OC to pay out of pocket costs for any additional registrations, which will be owned by the Trust."
Considering that the COs already remunerate the licensee in one way or the other for IANA services, I thought it might be neater for the licensee[ICANN] to be the one handling any out of pocket cost for new registrations instead of having COs deal with the trust directly on that.
I see. Well, this bit is really an attempt to protect the Trust from a whole bunch of requests to register things. So who bears the cost is part of the point: if you want 1000 new mark registrations all over the world, then you will have to do the cost-benefit analysis of the value because you'll pay the costs. Otherwise, the incentives are misaligned.
To be clear, while I am a Trustee I'm not speaking for it here.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:29:49PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
… a whole bunch of requests to register things.
But all the registrations will be based on RFCs. Correct?
I don't see why. These are trademark registrations or domain name registrations we're talking about. AFAIK none of the previous such registrations were done by RFC. Publishing an RFC to get the Trust to do something is a pretty heavyweight mechanism. A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Yes. I was referring to the protocol parameters. Apologies for not making that clear. CW On 04 Aug 2016, at 17:58, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:29:49PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
… a whole bunch of requests to register things.
But all the registrations will be based on RFCs. Correct?
I don't see why. These are trademark registrations or domain name registrations we're talking about. AFAIK none of the previous such registrations were done by RFC. Publishing an RFC to get the Trust to do something is a pretty heavyweight mechanism.
A (speaking for myself)
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
If there are protocol parameters, they go into the relevant registry according to the registration rules (not all of them require an RFC). But this set of IPR agreements has nothing to do with that, AFAICT. It's just about who gets to call themselves "IANA" or use the iana.org domain name. A On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:08:41PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Yes. I was referring to the protocol parameters. Apologies for not making that clear.
CW
On 04 Aug 2016, at 17:58, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 05:29:49PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
… a whole bunch of requests to register things.
But all the registrations will be based on RFCs. Correct?
I don't see why. These are trademark registrations or domain name registrations we're talking about. AFAIK none of the previous such registrations were done by RFC. Publishing an RFC to get the Trust to do something is a pretty heavyweight mechanism.
A (speaking for myself)
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Jonathan Robinson -
Seun Ojedeji