ICANN participation in iana-ipr list
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff. Who would be the right people? I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>. Alan Barrett
Thanks Alan, That would seem to me to be the following: 1. Trang Nguyen who is running the implementation project for ICANN (assisted by Yuko Green) 2. Sam Eisner who is the principal contact within ICANN legal on the project I have copied them both in so that they are aware of this suggestion. Let's see if any others raise any concerns and if Trang & Sam confirm that they will be the best contacts. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net] Sent: 20 July 2016 06:42 To: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: [Iana-ipr] ICANN participation in iana-ipr list While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff. Who would be the right people? I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Alan, I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below. But let’s discuss: The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI. The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI. Is there clear desire on everyone’s part that you’d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion? Ray Akram Atallah akram.atallah@icann.org Sam Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org Elise Gerich elise.gerich@icann.org
On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
Who would be the right people?
I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Ray, Good point. I think it makes more sense to discuss the CA only among the parties to the CA (the operational communities and the Trust). On the other hand, the operational community reps need to be part of the discussion of the license agreement (which I think will run to ICANN and not direct to PTI) and the IPR assignment. Greg On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,
I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.
But let’s discuss:
The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.
The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI.
Is there clear desire on everyone’s part that you’d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion?
Ray
Akram Atallah akram.atallah@icann.org Sam Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org Elise Gerich elise.gerich@icann.org
On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
Who would be the right people?
I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Greg just a point of clarification: the License Agreement that we distributed runs from the Trust to PTI. Jorge From: <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Cc: <iana-ipr@nro.net> Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] ICANN participation in iana-ipr list
Ray,
Good point. I think it makes more sense to discuss the CA only among the parties to the CA (the operational communities and the Trust).
On the other hand, the operational community reps need to be part of the discussion of the license agreement (which I think will run to ICANN and not direct to PTI) and the IPR assignment.
Greg
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,
I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.
But let¹s discuss:
The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.
The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI.
Is there clear desire on everyone¹s part that you¹d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion?
Ray
Akram Atallah akram.atallah@icann.org Sam Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org Elise Gerich elise.gerich@icann.org
On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn¹t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
Who would be the right people?
I¹d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Jorge, I saw that. That's inconsistent with the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA IPR Agreements, which contemplates the license running to ICANN, with the right to sublicense to PTI. We'll need to fix that in the next draft before we turn that back to this list. Since I understand that you had no comments on the Proposed Principal Terms document, that shouldn't be an issue. Best regards, Greg *Gregory S. Shatan | Partner *McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 C: 917-816-6428 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan@mccarter.com | www.mccarter.com BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
Greg – just a point of clarification: the License Agreement that we distributed runs from the Trust to PTI.
Jorge
From: <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Cc: <iana-ipr@nro.net> Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] ICANN participation in iana-ipr list
Ray,
Good point. I think it makes more sense to discuss the CA only among the parties to the CA (the operational communities and the Trust).
On the other hand, the operational community reps need to be part of the discussion of the license agreement (which I think will run to ICANN and not direct to PTI) and the IPR assignment.
Greg
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,
I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.
But let’s discuss:
The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.
The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI.
Is there clear desire on everyone’s part that you’d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion?
Ray
Akram Atallah akram.atallah@icann.org Sam Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org Elise Gerich elise.gerich@icann.org
On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn’t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
Who would be the right people?
I’d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Hi Greg as with all high level term sheets, the one you¹re referring to had a number of issues, inconsistencies and glitches that emerged as we parsed it line by line to develop the definitive agreements. We look forward to discussing these any any other concerns that you and others have during the telephone conference on July 26. 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. From: <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 5:46 PM To: Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> Cc: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>, <iana-ipr@nro.net> Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] ICANN participation in iana-ipr list
Jorge,
I saw that. That's inconsistent with the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA IPR Agreements, which contemplates the license running to ICANN, with the right to sublicense to PTI. We'll need to fix that in the next draft before we turn that back to this list. Since I understand that you had no comments on the Proposed Principal Terms document, that shouldn't be an issue.
Best regards,
Greg
Gregory S. Shatan | Partner McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
245 Park Avenue, 27th Floor | New York, New York 10167 T: 212-609-6873 C: 917-816-6428 F: 212-416-7613 gshatan@mccarter.com <mailto:gshatan@mccarter.com> | www.mccarter.com <http://www.mccarter.com/>
BOSTON | HARTFORD | STAMFORD | NEW YORK | NEWARK EAST BRUNSWICK | PHILADELPHIA | WILMINGTON | WASHINGTON, DC
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jorge Contreras <contreraslegal@att.net> wrote:
Greg just a point of clarification: the License Agreement that we distributed runs from the Trust to PTI.
Jorge
From: <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Cc: <iana-ipr@nro.net> Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] ICANN participation in iana-ipr list
Ray,
Good point. I think it makes more sense to discuss the CA only among the parties to the CA (the operational communities and the Trust).
On the other hand, the operational community reps need to be part of the discussion of the license agreement (which I think will run to ICANN and not direct to PTI) and the IPR assignment.
Greg
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,
I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.
But let¹s discuss:
The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.
The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI.
Is there clear desire on everyone¹s part that you¹d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion?
Ray
Akram Atallah akram.atallah@icann.org Sam Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org Trang Nguyen trang.nguyen@icann.org John Jeffrey john.jeffrey@icann.org Elise Gerich elise.gerich@icann.org
On Jul 20, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:
While we were discussion the draft principal terms document, we didn¹t have any ICANN representatives in the iana-ipr group. Now that we are moving on to discussion the agreements, I think we should have some ICANN participation, including both legal and other staff.
Who would be the right people?
I¹d suggest that any ICANN people who want to be involved end a request to German Valdez <german@nro.net>.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.nethttps://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
On 20 Jul 2016, at 19:17, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
Alan,
I asked ICANN about this and they confirmed this list below.
Thank you.
But let’s discuss:
The Communities are discussing Agreements with the Trust, the Community Agreement (CA) and the License Agreement to PTI.
The Trust is also discussing the IPR Assignment to the Trust. And, of course, will need to discuss the License Agreement to the PTI.
Is there clear desire on everyone’s part that you’d like to invite ICANN to the CA discussion?
I think that ICANN should be involved in discussions about the transfer of IPR from ICANN to the Trust, and the licences from the Trust to ICANN and/or PTI. They don’t necessarily need to be involved in the discussion of the community agreement, unless the names community identifies ICANN as the entity that would enter into the community agreement. Alan Barrett
participants (5)
-
Alan Barrett -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Jorge Contreras -
Ray Pelletier