Alissa, I'll give you my thoughts on the various questions, although these are not official answers of the CWG: 1. Timeline: It's unclear if Manal is asking about the timeline for the estimate or for the underlying project. For the estimate, counsel to the CWG (Sidley) responded yesterday on another estimate request made at the same time, and said they would respond shortly to this request. For the underlying project, I think it's premature to come up with a specific timeline until we engage counsel and talk timing with them. That said, everyone understands this needs to be expedited to coordinate with the ICG. 2. Fallback Plan: I don't think there's any need to formulate a backup plan. I am highly confident that we will get the help we need from Sidley with an appropriate time and cost. They've been working closely with us; they know they need to be pragmatic and cost-effective. Also, ICANN has said that they will give this project the support it needs, so the concept of "out of budget" doesn't strictly apply. That said, this is not a "blank check," and if the estimate seems excessive, I'm sure we'll push back and quickly get it right. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate on a back-up plan in the exceptionally unlikely event that we decide not to assign Sidley this particular task; I'll just reiterate that I think it is unnecessary and even a tad alarmist to focus on this. 3. As for Milton's question, "why would CWG be seriously considering options that are going to cause compatibility problems" with the CRISP proposal? I believe the CWG has a duty and an obligation to come to its own understanding of the facts and the law, and then to come to its own conclusions. As has been well stated by our Chairs, the CWG has not yet formed a view. Implicit in this, the CWG has not formed a view on the CRISP proposal. It would be highly inappropriate to pressure the CWG to "go along to get along," to accept another community's position just because it showed up first, and not on the basis of actual deliberation and understanding. The CRISP proposal does not form any kind of "status quo." Indeed, the "status quo" is that ICANN owns the trademarks and domain names. Although the RFP asked us to maintain the status quo unless there specific, well-explained reasons not to, I think that the CWG should approach this question with an open mind, without giving weight to either the status quo or the CRISP proposal. If the CWG comes up with a different proposal than the CRISP proposal, the ICG should also approach this situation with an open mind, and facilitate a determination by the communities and the ICG of how to resolve any incompatibility. Greg On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

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 <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 <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

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Hi Alissa, As the one writing to Sidley I will give you the background for the request. Below are the notes from the CWG meeting on July 9th where the group discussed the IPR and my further comments: “Client committee met briefly prior to this meeting, preceded by an informal meeting of the members of the client committee yesterday • Ongoing concern with regard to prudent use of legal resources and manage cost effectively. Chairs of CWG, CCWG, ICANN legal and finance met to discuss how to effectively manage resources and costs. Proposal to include legal fees in the remit of the client committee, in conjunction with ICANN staff. No questions or objections raised to this approach. • Main points discussed during today's meeting were: 1) IANA Trademark / IPR - request was received from the ICG to provide an update with the chairs did confirming that CWG-Stewardship is silent on what to do with IANA trademark. ICANN Board also provided input to ICG on this topic (see http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html) . CWG-Stewardship to determine whether or not it should take a position on this issue. Two options - remain silent (maintain status quo, and rely on commitment from from ICANN Board) or ask Sidley for expert input to evaluate what the options are from the CWG-Stewardship's point of view. Other communities have indicated their preference to move it to IETF trust - based on conversations with IANAPLAN and CRISP, those groups have indicated that they are not planning to make any changes to their proposal, unless CWG-Stewardship would come forward with input that would conflict with their proposed approach. Should this be handled by Sidley or ICANN legal team, also taking into account desire to be prudent with regards to costs? Would first need to confirm with other communities if they would be comfortable with the ICANN legal team - if not, it would not make any sense to approach ICANN legal (who might also engage external expertise to address this issue). Other communities have also indicated willingness to share information concerning the legal advice that they have obtained. Likely that ICANN Legal input would be similar to the response provided by the ICANN Board, which is likely not acceptable by the other communities. However, if this input is provided by an independent party, such as Sidley, it might be received differently. Need to distinguish between advice on trademark law and insight into ICANN's position, where the former is what is likely needed as latter is already known. ICG would likely move forward with proposal to move trademark to a trust (IETF) unless the other communities indicate that this would not be acceptable. A non-decision is not desirable - as such CWG should get expert advice to base its position on whether it is in agreement with the current proposal or whether an alternative proposal is preferred. Sidley could be asked to conduct a stress-test approach; what risks exists with each approach from a CWG-Stewardship perspective. Evaluate these in view of ICANN's position and the proposal from the other communities to determine what is optimal and/or acceptable. As a point of information, 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. 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.” So we plan to have an assessment from Sidley on the issue and to involve the other communities regarding this. The reason to ask for an analysis on different scenarios is to have the full picture of any issues that might arise. We have been told that such an analysis doesn’t take long, and we are asking for a quote in order to be cost-conscious. If this turns out to be too expensive or too lengthy the plan B will be to get back to CWG and discuss a new approach to the IP issue. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alissa Cooper Sendt: 16. juli 2015 19:22 Til: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Emne: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG 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