[CRISP-TEAM] Call for observations on the CWG-Stewardship proposal

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


The CWG-Stewardship has updated version of the propsal after the one published for public comment.
I'd like to call for observations from the CRISP Team members on the latest CWG-Stwardship proposal before: UTC16:00 16th June
(3 business days from now)


It would be useful if you could comment especially on:
 
 - Any questions you have about the proposal
 - Possible incompatiblities with the numbers proposal/clarification related to this

I would like to share it to the NRO EC for their reference and communicate this to Alan and Paul Wilson by 16th June UTC23:59.

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150609/aea1179e/FinalTransitionProposal_v5-Redline-commentsandeditsfordiscussion-0001.docx

This I hope would allow Alan and Paul to raise any questions/issues of incompatibilities at the ICG meeting in Buenos Aires (18th & 19th June).



Below is my observations:

* PTI Board (P.22 Para 111)
 - Defines its role to be minimal: consistent with the CRISP comment
 - Defines composition of the Board 3-5 people
    3 appointed by ICANN/PTI directly related to the IANA Functions Operator
    The two additional directors must be nominated using an appropriately rigorous nomination mechanism (e.g., through the use of the ICANN Nominating Committee)
   
[Question: What exacly is rigorous nomination mechanism? Who can be the candidates?]

* IANA Function Review (P.24 para 117)
 - From their list of occausions where they define "Special IANA Function Review" below it looks like it would be related to the names but not 100% clear
	CSC Remedial Action Procedures are followed and fail to correct the identified deficiency (see Annex G); and.
	The IANA Problem Resolution Process is followed and fails to correct the identified deficiency (see Annex J).

[Observation: Need more clarify whether it is related to the names functions only]

* IPR
 - As a part of condition of the contract, it is suggested to add this clause. This reads as though ICANN still holds the rights of IANA trademark, iana.org domain and licences its use to the PTI.
 
"Trademarks	ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks, and all applications and registrations therefor, for use in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract.  ICANN shall prosecute all such applications and maintain all such registrations at its sole cost and expense for the duration of the ICANN-PTI Contract, including all renewal terms and extensions. "


[Question: Would it make it incompatible from the legal perspective? If yes, this would be inconsistency with the numbers proposal]


Izumi