[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

Hi Izumi, CRISP Team,

We many need to debate this statement from Sidley to see if it is
consistent with our proposal as Sidley claims. We might be asked to give
our views on them,so better we be prepared.. "housing the IANA IPR with
ICANN would be consistent with the Internet Number Community’s separation
recommendation "

" Per the CWG Final Proposal, PTI will be the IANA functions operator. The
Internet Number Community, through CRISP, has recommended that ownership of
the IANA IPR not be held by the IANA functions operator in order to
facilitate a smooth transition should another operator be selected in the
future and to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory
way. Therefore, housing the IANA IPR with ICANN would be consistent with
the Internet Number Community’s separation recommendation (albeit not with
their specifically-recommended form of an independent trust as discussed in
Scenario 3 below)."

My initial assessment would be how "separate" is PTI from ICANN? How much
control does ICANN have over PTI?

Sincerely,


______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 5 August 2015 at 18:51, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> CRISP Team,
>
>
> The legal analysis on the IPR by CWG Lawyers are now available (See PDF
> attachment).
> This is to serve as a reference for discussions in CWG and their position
> is not yet fixed.
>
> Nurani and I are expected to hear from Jonathan and Lise if there is
> anything which needs our attention and need of a dialogue.
> I'll keep you updated on any further developments.
>
>
> Izumi
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo
> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:37:14 +0000
> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> To: cwg-Stewardship at icann.org <cwg-Stewardship at icann.org>
>
> Dear all,
> This legal input was sent to the Client Committee earlier today.
> Best,
> Grace
>
> From:  <cwg-client-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sharon Flanagan
> <sflanagan at sidley.com>
> Date:  Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:05 AM
> To:  Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
> Subject:  [client com] IPR Memo
>
> Dear All,
>
> Attached is a memo on the IPR issue under the three ownership structures.
> Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Holly, Josh and Sharon
>
>
> SHARON FLANAGAN
> Partner
>
> Sidley Austin LLP
> +1.415.772.1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ************************
> 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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150807/1065800f/attachment.html>