- IPC-GNSO - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard - ICANN CEO Blog
by Greg Shatan Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

FYI. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 28, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard - ICANN CEO Blog To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-beta-kpi-dashboard#> [image: Beta kpi dashboard 750x426 28aug15 en] After over a year of building ICANN's management discipline and solidifying our planning cycle <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/planning-en>, I am pleased to announce that today we've published a beta version of the ICANN Beta KPI Dashboard which you can find here: https://www.icann.org/progress. The Beta KPI Dashboard, in addition to the Quarterly Stakeholder Calls <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/quarterly-reports-2014-11-13-en> that have been in place since the start of FY15, allow us to regularly report on progress made against ICANN's strategic and operating plans that the community have helped create. We established the Quarterly Stakeholder Calls and the KPI Dashboard to allow anyone to stay informed on ICANN's activities and to help take the reporting out of ICANN Meetings so we can use this valuable time for more robust discussions. The beta KPI Dashboard is aligned to the five objectives and 16 goals per the Five-Year Strategic and Operating Plan, and contains over 40 KPIs with data as of June 2015. This is a tool I use with ICANN's management to help bring clarity to discussions and track trends over time, and I am very pleased to be able to share this with you, so that you also have visibility of ICANN's work and can help keep the organization accountable. The Dashboard is a beta version, which means we are asking for your feedback to help us track the right KPIs and set the right targets. If there is something you don't agree with or doesn't quite make sense, please send your questions or comments to: dashboard-feedback(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dashboard-feedback(a)icann.org');>. There will also be a session at ICANN54 in Dublin covering more on the beta KPI Dashboard. Details - ICANN Blog David A. Olive Sent from my iPad

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal - ICANN Blog by Steve Crocker
by Greg Shatan Aug. 26, 2015

Aug. 26, 2015

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal - ICANN Blog by Steve Crocker To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns < duncan.burns(a)icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-commsoacunity-on-our-review-of… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> Updating our Community on our Review of the CCWG-Accountability Proposal <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/updating-our-community-on-our-review-of-the…> The Board is deeply engaged in reviewing the CCWG-Accountability proposal and has actively participated in the process. Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we would like to share with the Community the steps in our review process. Last week, the ICANN Board submitted a preliminary set of comments <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00006.…> to the CCWG-Accountability Public Comment forum. The Board remains committed to engaging and working with the CCWG on solutions to address concerns raised in its preliminary set of comments. A subset of ICANN Board Members and Staff Members have been meeting in Washington, DC on Tuesday and Wednesday this week to further consider the CCWG proposal and commence a review of an impact analysis from ICANN's external counsel. As part of this meeting, the group held a call together with the CCWG Chairs. For full transparency and to clarify the basis for the review points and comments, ICANN will share the impact analysis and publish it in the CCWG Public Comment forum. The Board welcomes feedback from the CCWG on the impact analysis as it finalizes its responses to the CCWG proposal in the Public Comment forum. Next week, consistent with the CCWG request, the Board will have an open teleconference with the CCWG to help inform the Board's development of its comments to be submitted into the Public Comment forum before the close of the comment period on 12 September. Call details will be announced so that anyone in the community may participate. Finally, in light of the importance of these discussions, we propose that the CCWG-Accountability hold a public meeting in Los Angeles in late September to continue the dialogue with the Board on the CCWG proposal. As part of the ICANN community, we will continue to work constructively to help the CCWG finalize the proposal to achieve a successful IANA Stewardship transition and an ICANN with enhanced accountability. We remain appreciative of the CCWG's valuable work. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.olive(a)icann.org');> www.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update
by Greg Shatan Aug. 25, 2015

Aug. 25, 2015

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] FW: August 2015 ICANN Policy Update To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> View this email in your browser <http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d9a840dd…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Share <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Tweet <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> Forward <http://us3.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=65d…> ASO <#14f656b55291db97_ANSO> | ccNSO <#14f656b55291db97_ccNSO> | GNSO <#14f656b55291db97_GNSO> | ALAC <#14f656b55291db97_ALAC> | GAC <#14f656b55291db97_GAC> | RSSAC <#14f656b55291db97_RSSAC> | SSAC <#14f656b55291db97_SSAC> Public Comments Contribute to Policy Development Processes and Proposals ------------------------------ A fundamental principle of ICANN's commitment to accountability and transparency is providing opportunities for input and feedback from the community. ICANN achieves this through the public comment process. In this month's issue we note a number of important public comment developments. Currently, a public comment proceeding on Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments recommended by the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group's Final Report seeks community opinions about three new GNSO process recommendations. A Final Report produced by the Working Group recommends improvements to the GNSO Council's ability to respond to policy and implementation matters by using new standardized mechanisms instead of existing ad hoc processes. The ICANN Board has asked for community input on the recommendations before it takes any action. (Read more in this issue.) Last month, I wrote a blog post explaining the policy development process as it relates to the GNSO Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report. That public comment proceeding recently received a remarkable 11,000+ public comments, highlighting the importance of the issue to our community and general interest on the topic from Internet users. The Policy Development Support staff is now working diligently on summarizing the large number of public comments in order to publish a summary report for community review as soon as possible. Of course, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group recently posted for input the consolidated proposal for the future of the IANA functions, and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability also published for feedback its second draft report. This issue examines those comment opportunities as well. Whether core policy development work or strategic proposals, we encourage you participate in ICANN's public comment process. Public comment strengthens the multistakeholder model and distinguishes our bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development work. Best regards, David Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Istanbul Hub Office Policy Across ICANN Issues Currently Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Supporting Organizations (SOs) ASO ------------------------------ Three Policy Proposals for APNIC40 <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Regional Internet Registries Number Resource Policy Discussions <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GNSO ------------------------------ GNSO Council Adopts Review of GAC Buenos Aires Communiqué <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> GNSO Council Grants Extension for Delivery of Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Publishes Initial Report for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> Policy & Implementation Working Group's Proposed Bylaw Changes Open for Public Comment <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> Advisory Committees (ACs) ALAC ------------------------------ ALAC Creates New Taskforce to Review At-Large Structure Criteria and Engagement <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> ALAC Ratifies Statement on GNSO Review Draft Report <http://icann.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> RALO Round-Up <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> GAC ------------------------------ Notification List for Country Names as Domains <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id…> ------------------------------ *Copyright © 2015 ICANN, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you are a valued subscriber to Policy Update. Due to your loyalty, ICANN’s multistakeholder model remains vibrant and productive. Thank you for your continued readership. *Our mailing address is:* ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Add us to your address book <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/vcard?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=02716…> unsubscribe from this list <http://icann.us3.list-manage2.com/unsubscribe?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&i…> update subscription preferences <http://icann.us3.list-manage.com/profile?u=818d573897ed5ea25ee71ebc1&id=027…>

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System
by Greg Shatan Aug. 24, 2015

Aug. 24, 2015

This will be of particular interest. Note the upcoming webinar. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *GDD Communications* <gdd-communications(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Report/Webinar: WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear ICANN Community members, Today ICANN published the Phase 1 Report of the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System <http://whois.icann.org/en/file/whois-ars-phase-1-report-syntax-accuracy> (ARS), which provides information about the syntax accuracy of WHOIS records in gTLDs as compared to the requirements of the Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs). The report details the methodology used to collect, test, and analyze the data and provides various cuts of the data as information for the community. Based on the data collected from the ARS, the ICANN Contractual Compliance team will be conducting follow up with registrars regarding potentially inaccurate records using the Contractual Compliance Approach and Process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en>. As a reminder <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-08-12-en>, ICANN is holding a webinar that will focus on the findings of the report, and we’d like to invite you and your constituents to participate. Below you will find the information necessary to join us in the discussion. *Date / Time: 26 August 2015, 15:00 - 16:00 UTC *(time zone converter <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html>) *Adobe Connect:* https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gdd *Teleconference:* Download numbers now <http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/whois-ars-dial-in-numbers-…> (Passcode: GDD) This webinar will be conducted in English. Recordings will be published in the knowledge center of the WHOIS website at: http://whois.icann.org/en/knowledge-center. *Questions?* We encourage participants to come to the webinar with questions, as there will be a question and answer period after the presentation. The webinar will be recorded, providing those who are unable to attend the opportunity to listen at a later time. You can even pose additional questions to ICANN Global Customer Support at CustomerSupport(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','CustomerSupport(a)icann.org');>. We look forward to discussing the Phase 1 Report with you on 26 August! Best regards, Jamie Hedlund V.P. Strategic Programs Global Domains Division

1 0

Welcome New IPC Members and Representatives
by Greg Shatan Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

Fellow IPC members, I would like to welcome 4 new members and 2 new member representatives to the IPC. Our new members are: ** *June Intellectual Property Services Inc.*, Istanbul, Turkey; representative , Dilek Ustun *Aleksandar Icokaev, *Popovski Law Office , Skopje, Macedonia *Nihan Guneli, *Guneli & Koc Law Firm , Istanbul , Turkey *Scott Austin* , VLP Law Group LLP , Fort Lauderdale , Florida , USA Our new member representatives are: *AIPLA, *Christina Gervasi *Marksmen*, Ken Taylor I am looking forward to working with each of our new members and representatives on our important work, and hopefully to seeing many of them in Dublin. Please welcome them all! Best regards, Greg Shatan President, IPC

6 5

Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
by Greg Shatan Aug. 20, 2015

Aug. 20, 2015

By the way, here is the IETF's license to Association Management Services, a third party entity providing secretariat services to the IETF. I would be curious to know what people think of the quality control provisions (i.e., relating to the quality of goods and services, as distinguished from provisions relating to trademark usage), and of the license generally -- at least as a trademark license. Greg On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: > See http://trustee.ietf.org/IETFtrustAgreement20051208.pdf Pages 11-13. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > > *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 3:04 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com>; Jeff Neuman < > jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>; trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMC Grady < > pmcgrady(a)winston.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Goodwill always needs to be assigned with a trademark (at least under US > law). That said, I can't see any reason to expect or even suspect that the > IANA Trademarks will be transferred to a third party without the goodwill > appurtenant to the marks. > > > > Jeff -- if you recall, what was the "IP associated with the IETF > Secretariat functions"? Was the IETF trademark (and/or the IETF > SECRETARIAT trademark) part of that IP? > > > > It should be noted that the IETF Trust only owns three trademark > registrations, one for IETF, one for the IETF logo and one for IETF > SECRETARIAT (which it has explicitly decided to abandon). There is only > one licensee of the IETF trademarks -- to the IETF Secretariat. I'm not > sure that indicates any specific expertise in trademark license (noting > also that the IETF Trust does not appear to have any employees, and thus no > employees who would embody that expertise). > > > > Greg > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> > wrote: > > Anne, > > > > The IETF Trust was set up solely to manage the IP of the IETF. To make a > very long story short, It was a quid pro quo during the negotiations > between Bob Kahn’s who claimed to own the IP associated with the IETF > Secretariat functions, the IETF and ISOC leadership and Neustar who offered > to buy the Secretariat functions from Bob, but assign the IP rights to the > IETF Trust. Bob Kahn, for his own reasons, did not trust the ISOC or IETF > leadership to manage the IP at the time and wanted to ensure there was a > neutral entity that was established to manage the IP in the public > interest. Steve Crocker and I, on a flight back from an ICANN meeting in > Argentina, created the idea of the IETF Trust (and the initial set up > documents) to ease the concerns of Bob while at the same time ensuring that > the IP could be licensed to the IETF. > > > > All that aside, I still have the same questions (which Clarke also > raised). And that is the so what. Let’s assume the worst and the IANA > name is trashed for whatever reason. The IANA function is a unique > function which does not rely on its name. You could rebrand the function > ZZXYA, and that still would have little if any impact on the users of the > service. Aside from getting a new domain name (and learning how to > pronounce that new name J), it would have no effect on the users of the > service. It’s not a consumer product or service. No one outside the > industry knows the name anyway. > > > > I understand in the normal corporate transaction assigning the goodwill > associated with a transfer of the name is critical. I am just not sure of > whether that applies here at all. > > > > I am still waiting for a tangible example that someone has where it would > cause a huge issue. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > > *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:03 PM > *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>; trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; > PMC Grady <pmcgrady(a)winston.com> > *Cc:* gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > > > *Subject:* RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Jeff, just a note that Paul’s observations about the QC issue are very > important since a transfer of the marks without the good will renders the > transfer void and any license without real QC is a “naked license” and > likewise unenforceable. There is no reason IETF would know this. For some > reason I thought that Trust was formed to develop technical protocol, not > to manage IP, but you would know better than I. > > Anne > > > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com > <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>* > > > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:41 AM > *To:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMcGrady(a)winston.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Quick Correction – I think the SLEs we have been working on may be for the > CWG as opposed to the CCWG. It gets incredibly confusing. So all > references in my emails below to CCWG should really be CWG. > > > Thanks. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > > *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:42 AM > *To:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com; PMcGrady(a)winston.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Understood. That is more of a question for the CCWG, so I will throw this > over to Greg now. > > > > *Jeffrey J. Neuman* > > *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* > > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > > E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > T: +1.703.635.7514 > > M: +1.202.549.5079 > > @Jintlaw > > > > > > *From:* trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com > <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20 AM > *To:* PMcGrady(a)winston.com; jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com > *Cc:* ipc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > And the plan should include what actions will be taken when 3rd parties > use the mark without permission. Ultimately budget will also need to be > set aside for such enforcement by whoever is doing it. > > > > Best regards, > > > > *Marc H. Trachtenberg* > Shareholder > Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL > 60601 > Tel 312.456.1020 > > Mobile 773.677.3305 > > trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com > > > > [image: Description: Greenberg Traurig] > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:54 AM > *To:* Jeff Neuman > *Cc:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Thanks Jeff. Yes, I think it would be good to see the report as soon as > practical. Good to know that the community will be monitoring SLEs. > However, that won’t absolve the trademark owner/licensor from doing so and > the QC’s have to have teeth. Since we will be handing a set of teeth to > someone, I think there needs to be some real thought put into it and a plan > published for public comment before it happens. > > > > *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:45 AM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Greg Shatan; IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Paul, > > > > Ok, if the concerns are around service levels, I totally get that. That > has been separated from the monitoring of the trademarks. I have been > working in a small group chartered by the CCWG and working with IANA/ICANN > to come up with a framework for Service Levels that will be monitored by > the community. The group consisted of three ccTLDs and three reps from the > gTLDs and chaired by Paul Kane. Yesterday was hopefully our last call > before we release the subgroup report to the CCWG, who in turn will put it > out for public comment shortly. The mailing list of the group is public. > > > > It is important to note that we developed a framework and in some cases > the SLEs, but in other cases, since we have asked for things that have not > been measured before, we are waiting for IANA to build the capability to > measure these items before coming back and setting the actual SLEs based on > past performance and industry norms. > > > > It is also important to note that the subgroup was not chartered to > develop the penalties associated with breaching the SLEs. That will be for > the CCWG to determine at a later point. If anyone wants to see the current > draft, I am happy to send around, but will ask for a couple of days while > the draft is cleaned up to reflect the discussions yesterday. > > > > I hope that helps. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jeff > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 19, 2015, at 6:27 AM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)winston.com> > wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to conjure up the mischief > that can be caused by someone using IANA knockoff domain names, logos and > copyrights. Who will police those? IANA or the Trust? If IANA, how will > the Trust ensure that IANA’s efforts are sufficient. > > > > With regard to quality control, what level of quality is associated now > with the IANA trademark (e.g. customer service levels, consistent > performance, etc.) and how will the Trust monitor IANA’s future performance > to ensure that the levels now associated with it remain the same throughout > the term of the license back arrangement? If IANA’s performance under an > un-supervised ICANN, for example, IANA pulling a TLD out of the root under > political pressure, falls below the quality associated with the mark now, > what will the Trust do and will it have the requisite power in the license > to do so? > > > > The bottom line here is that, once again, ICANN has shown a fundamental > ignorance of how trademarks work. You can’t separate the mark from the > goodwill and you can’t license without quality control standards. > Trademarks aren’t patents, no matter how many engineers sit on the ICANN > Board. > > > > So, who are these IETF Trust people and why would anyone hand them this > kind of power without knowing who they are and who they would be > accountable to? > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > > > *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com > <jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:33 PM > *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne > *Cc:* Greg Shatan; McGrady, Paul D.; IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > All, > > > > The IETF Trust was specifically formed to manage and control the > Intellectual Property of the IETF. I was involved in the creation of the > Trust along with Steve Crocker, ISOC Leadership, Bob Kahn, as well as the > then IETF Chair, and trademark counsel the IETF leadership and others. An > amendment would need to be required in order for them to manage the IP > Rights of the IANA organization, but that does not seem to be too > complicated. The IETF's Trust's sole reason for existence was to manage IP > so they should have the expertise. Granted I have not followed the > evolution of the Trust over the past five years or so, but they should have > the expertise. > > > > But let me ask a fundamental question. What quality control are we really > worried about here in terms of use of the trademark rights? I have been > racking my brain trying to think of the possible parade of horribles that > might occur if IANA is not able to control the use of the IANA trademark. > can there really be infringement of the IANA mark which may not arguably > be used in commerce? even if there is a use of the mark by others, Are we > worried that others may believe that some other entity is the real IANA if > the other entity uses the IANA name? I would think the accountability > measures within the community are too strong for that (not to mention the > sophistication of the IANA user base - the registries and the IETF itself. > > > > I am only playing devil's advocate here, but what are practical concerns > we are worried about? > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:52 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> > wrote: > > Good question by Paul – seems this would require an amendment to the terms > of the IETF Trust. Also not sure this falls within their expertise. If > they hold the trademark, they have to license it and put the quality > control provisions in the license, right? > > > > *<image002.gif>* > > *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* > > *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | * > > *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* > > *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* > > *AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com <AAikman(a)LRRLaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lrrlaw.com_&d=AwMFA…>* > > > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org > <ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:51 PM > *To:* McGrady, Paul D. > *Cc:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > ICANN has not proposed a particular third party. The CRISP Team, > representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust. The > IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the > IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether > they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and > that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role. It's not > clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark > counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal. > > > > The CWG has not taken a position. A rough consensus seems to be emerging > that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, > if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the > third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities). This > is still an active discussion in the CWG. Many are pushing for it to be > the IETF Trust. I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive > concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and > enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind). > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)winston.com> > wrote: > > Greg, > > > > Which entity will be the assignee of the IANA trademark? In order for > that to work, the assignee will need to have quality control power. Who is > ICANN suggesting will retain quality control over the IANA mark? That is a > very powerful position, indeed. > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > *Paul D. McGrady Jr.* > > *Partner * > > *Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice * > > Winston & Strawn LLP > 35 W. Wacker Drive > Chicago, IL 60601-9703 > > D: +1 (312) 558-5963 > > F: +1 (312) 558-5700 > > Bio > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_en_who-…> > | VCard > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com_vcards_…> > | Email <pmcgrady(a)winston.com> | winston.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.winston.com&d=AwMFA…> > > <image003.jpg> > > > > > > *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Greg Shatan > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:02 AM > *To:* IPC-GNSO > *Subject:* [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding > IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > > > > Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding > the IANA Trademarks and domain names. > > > > Greg > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 > Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual > Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN > To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > David A. Olive > > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, > Istanbul > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 > > Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> > > Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 > > Email: david.olive(a)icann.org > > www.icann.org > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=AwMFAw…> > > > > > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > _______________________________________________ > IPC-GNSO mailing list > IPC-GNSO(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ipc-gnso > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > > > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. > Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it > without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive > any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without > the permission of the author. > ------------------------------ > > If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged > information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at > postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information. > > > ------------------------------ > > > This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this > message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or > agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended > recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any > attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and > confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. > > >

8 18

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] SIIA Blog: IANA Contract Extension is the Right Thing to Do
by Greg Shatan Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

All: I thought the attached would be of interest. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:54 AM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] SIIA Blog: IANA Contract Extension is the Right Thing to Do To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Dear all, Here below is a blog from CCWG participant Carl Schonander. We’ll upload it to the Wiki blog page <https://community.icann.org/x/XCPxAg> as part of the group’s outreach efforts. Please let us know if you have any blogs of your own that you would like us to add to the Wiki. Best, Grace Link: http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2015/08/iana-contract-extension-the-right-th… IANA CONTRACT EXTENSION THE RIGHT THING TO DO <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2015/08/iana-contract-extension-the-right-th…> August 18, 2015 By Carl Schonander <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/author/cschonander/> Yesterday, the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition> that it is extending the contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) functions. The contract will be extended by one year from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Briefly, the IANA functions relate to the Domain Name Server (DNS) system, which connects names and numbers. Although this is sometimes described as a “clerical” function, it is critical to the continued seamless functioning of the Internet. SIIA welcomed <http://blog.siia.net/index.php/2014/03/siia-welcomes-privatization-of-inter…> the March 14, 2014 NTIA announcement to transition the IANA functions to multistakeholder control. At the same time, we strongly supported the Administration’s insistence that the conditions <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> it articulated for the transfer to be met. SIIA also considers the Congress’s oversight role to be important, which is why we support <http://www.siia.net/Press/SIIA-Supports-Amended-DOTCOM-Act-of-2015> the proposed DOTCOM <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/805/text> Act. The bill requires the NTIA conditions to be met, as well as for a number of broad ICANN accountability reforms to be included in ICANN’s bylaws. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) have developed proposals which make substantial progress in addressing the NTIA conditions. However, more time is clearly needed in order to review and perhaps further develop these proposals. Currently, for instance, there are important discussions on the role of governments (the GAC) with respect to its relationship to the ICANN Board, as well as continued debate on the jurisdiction (California) under which ICANN operates. These issues need to be resolved prior to the transition. For all of these reasons, it was prudent for NTIA to give the multistakeholder community more time to create arrangements, which will be critical for global commerce in the coming years. But by no means does this action indicate a lack of commitment to this transition. The Internet is a critical resource that has developed into the wonderful infrastructure it is through a unique distributed governance arrangement best known as the multistakeholder model. SIIA remains committed to that vision <http://www.infoworld.com/article/2868011/internet/keeping-the-internet-free…> . _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN
by Greg Shatan Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

Steve Crocker issued a statement on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding the IANA Trademarks and domain names. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *David Olive* <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - ICANN To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','david.olive(a)icann.org');> www.icann.org

6 12

Fwd: IPC Comments on the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration
by Greg Shatan Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

All: I have attached a copy of the IPC's public comment on this topic, as submitted Monday to ICANN Ken -- could you please post this to the IPC website under "Position Statements"? Thanks! Best regards, Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:50 PM Subject: IPC Comments on the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration To: "comments-transliteration-contact-recommendations-29jun15(a)icann.org" < comments-transliteration-contact-recommendations-29jun15(a)icann.org> The Intellectual Property Constituency appreciates the opportunity to comment on the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Gregory S. Shatan President, Intellectual Property Constituency

2 1

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
by Greg Shatan Aug. 18, 2015

Aug. 18, 2015

This was sent to the CWG-Stewardship email list this evening. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Steve Crocker* <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 17, 2015 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN’s Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of “larger” governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put “larger” in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do. Let me make it clear that we’re committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN’s Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves. The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states: > 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN’s Bylaws. The current wording is tied to the original – may I say “ancient?” – model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN’s Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language. Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve. We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system. Steve Crocker On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ========================================================== Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements. • Board Working Group—Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services” to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team. • Board-Initiated Policy Development—Board adopted a “Process Framework” developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy. • Next Generation Registration Directory Service—Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, “A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS”), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today’s WHOIS system. • Preliminary Issue Report—To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment • Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS—In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP. • Strategic Priority—WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN’s Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets. • RAA— Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements. • Registry Agreements— Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements. • New IETF Protocol—IETF’s WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol. • Privacy & Proxy Services—A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program. • Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info—A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO’s PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information. • WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System—Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year. [1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 [2] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30… _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 2