[Internal-cg] Update from CWG on IANA IPR

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Fri Jul 24 00:20:49 UTC 2015 

On 22 Jul 2015, at 7:33, Russ Housley wrote:
…
>
> To my eyes, this text requires that as part of the implementation the 
> IPR needs to be transferred out of ICANN.  I do not think that a 
> transfer to an affiliate of ICANN (that is, PTI) meets the 
> requirement.

Yes, the CRISP proposal is clear on this and a change would require a 
return to the community consultation, along with a good justification 
for reopening this issue.

I think ICG members have concluded in the proposal assessment, that the 
combination of the Numbers and Protocols proposals would entail a simple 
solution, being the transfer of those intellectual properties to the 
IETF Trust, at the time of implementation.

To be honest I’m not sure what objections could be raised to that 
solution; and I’m also surprised by the estimated legal bill of $40K 
to “stress test” it.    But I guess the result of that process will 
inform me of risks and complexities that escape me at the moment!

Paul.



>
> Russ
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Wu Kuo wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The statement I gave is from the board. The questions asked by Russ 
>> are more complex to answer now based on the final proposal of ICG and 
>> the operator or operators will develop. As I know, some community 
>> like to sign contract ASAP. If the contract signed before PTI, then 
>> the trademark and domain name can stay with ICANN or other solution 
>> which we have to figure the legal and best solution for all. When PTI 
>> is established, trademark and domain name can be transferred to PTI 
>> or other solution(?). Then the community might transfer to PTI or 
>> remains the contract with ICANN which ICANN can not decide alone.
>>
>> If there is only one operator, the situation might be easier. If 
>> there are multiple operators, it could complex the situation as you 
>> all can predict which can not solved by ICANN alone too. We have to 
>> sit down to resolve together.
>>
>> Russ, I am sorry not giving you "firm" answer to your two questions. 
>> But you really raise good questions for all to think about.
>>
>> If we have further solution, I will inform you all ASAP.
>>
>> Kuo Wu
>>
>> 從我的 iPhone 傳送
>>
>> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月21日 06:37 
>> 寫道：
>>
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
>>>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: Request for a quote on two tasks
>>>> Date: July 21, 2015 at 2:12:51 PM GMT+2
>>>> To: <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>>> Cc: "'Jonathan Robinson'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
>>>>
>>>> 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 at sidley.com]
>>>> Sent: 18 July 2015 09:33
>>>> To: cwg-client at 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 at sidley.com
>>>>
>>>> From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:58 AM
>>>> To: Flanagan, Sharon
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Robinson; Grace Abuhamad; Marika Konings; 
>>>> cwg-client at 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 at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list