[Iana-ipr] Agenda for 8/18 call

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Aug 17 20:50:42 CEST 2016


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 at anvilwalrusden.com



More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list