Here is a proposed agenda for the call on August 18.
1. Outstanding items in the community agreement - Names community signatory 2. Outstanding items in the license agreement - Definition of Names Community (1.24) - Arbitration items: number of arbitrators and location (7.4)
3. Outstanding items in the assignment agreement - Indemnification duration (6.1)
4. Timing for CCG member appointments
5. Approach to establishment of CCG operating procedures
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:56:11PM -0400, Alissa Cooper wrote:
- Outstanding items in the assignment agreement
- Indemnification duration (6.1)
I'd like to add to this, as well, the nature of indemnification. The Trustees have a small worry here.
It turns out that ICANN has some claims against third parties in respect of the IANA trademark and some domain names, and as we've heard there is some legal activity there.
The indemnification only covers claims by third parties, and not open claims by ICANN against third parties.
We may need to make a small adjustment here.
A
Thanks Andrew -
The limitation that indemnification should not cover open, existing claims by ICANN against third parties makes sense to me.
On a related note, given the enforcement language we have in place in the draft, the IETF Trust could agree that ICANN is the appropriate party to continue with enforcement of those items (subject to the cooperation clauses, etc.) so that responsibility for those existing enforcement actions doesn¹t get called into question.
Sam ‹ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
On 8/17/16, 11:15 AM, "iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:56:11PM -0400, Alissa Cooper wrote:
- Outstanding items in the assignment agreement
- Indemnification duration (6.1)
I'd like to add to this, as well, the nature of indemnification. The Trustees have a small worry here.
It turns out that ICANN has some claims against third parties in respect of the IANA trademark and some domain names, and as we've heard there is some legal activity there.
The indemnification only covers claims by third parties, and not open claims by ICANN against third parties.
We may need to make a small adjustment here.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:20:38PM +0000, Samantha Eisner wrote:
The limitation that indemnification should not cover open, existing claims by ICANN against third parties makes sense to me.
I think the idea was that the indemnification _should_ cover such claims, so that at the time of the asset transfer the Trust doesn't end up with a bunch of potential liabilities that it didn't undertake. (We don't exactly know the nature of these actions yet, which is part of what's making trustees nervous.)
On a related note, given the enforcement language we have in place in the draft, the IETF Trust could agree that ICANN is the appropriate party to continue with enforcement of those items (subject to the cooperation clauses, etc.) so that responsibility for those existing enforcement actions doesn¹t get called into question.
I'll suggest this to the trust. It's something to consider.
A
If IETF Trust was brought into the existing enforcement action, then ICANN could indemnify the Trust. That is an unlikely scenario, but I think that this addresses your concern below.
― Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
On 8/17/16, 11:50 AM, "iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:20:38PM +0000, Samantha Eisner wrote:
The limitation that indemnification should not cover open, existing claims by ICANN against third parties makes sense to me.
I think the idea was that the indemnification _should_ cover such claims, so that at the time of the asset transfer the Trust doesn't end up with a bunch of potential liabilities that it didn't undertake. (We don't exactly know the nature of these actions yet, which is part of what's making trustees nervous.)
On a related note, given the enforcement language we have in place in the draft, the IETF Trust could agree that ICANN is the appropriate party to continue with enforcement of those items (subject to the cooperation clauses, etc.) so that responsibility for those existing enforcement actions doesn¹t get called into question.
I'll suggest this to the trust. It's something to consider.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
All - I would ask that any substantive negotiations over indemnification be deferred until I'm back from India next week. I don't see a rush here, and we need to see ICANN's disclosure (which will be when?) before discussing further. Thanks for considering this request.
Jorge
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2016, at 12:31 AM, Samantha Eisner Samantha.Eisner@icann.org wrote:
If IETF Trust was brought into the existing enforcement action, then ICANN could indemnify the Trust. That is an unlikely scenario, but I think that this addresses your concern below.
― Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631
On 8/17/16, 11:50 AM, "iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:20:38PM +0000, Samantha Eisner wrote: The limitation that indemnification should not cover open, existing claims by ICANN against third parties makes sense to me.
I think the idea was that the indemnification _should_ cover such claims, so that at the time of the asset transfer the Trust doesn't end up with a bunch of potential liabilities that it didn't undertake. (We don't exactly know the nature of these actions yet, which is part of what's making trustees nervous.)
On a related note, given the enforcement language we have in place in the draft, the IETF Trust could agree that ICANN is the appropriate party to continue with enforcement of those items (subject to the cooperation clauses, etc.) so that responsibility for those existing enforcement actions doesn¹t get called into question.
I'll suggest this to the trust. It's something to consider.
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
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
Here is an updated agenda. I have removed indemnification per Jorge’s request and will keep in the queue for next week’s call.
1. Outstanding items in the community agreement - Names community signatory 2. Outstanding items in the license agreement - Definition of Names Community (1.24) - Arbitration items: number of arbitrators and location (7.4)
3. Timing for CCG member appointments
4. Approach to establishment of CCG operating procedures
5. Future call scheduling
participants (4)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Andrew Sullivan -
Jorge Contreras -
Samantha Eisner