Meeting #15 Client Committee (9 July)

Notes 

Client Committee Meeting - Proposed Agenda

1. Potential for assistance with near-term work on intellectual property – IANA trademarks & domain names.

2. Potential assistance with or co-ordination of any ICANN bylaws related work such that the CCWG Accountability work is sure to meet the requirement of the CWG Stewardship

3.  Considerations which will need to be given when contemplating any assistance (from Sidley) as the CWG (or a successor group) role in implementation becomes clearer.

Notes 9/7 - Client Committee

1. Potential for assistance with near-term work on intellectual property – IANA trademarks & domain names.

• Topic also discussed in BA
• Board recently sent clarification to ICG list (see http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html)
• How should CWG deal with this issue taking into account proposals from the other communities? 
• Board statement suggests that ICANN prefers to keep the mark but that right to use is given to any future IANA operator
• There appear to be three possible scenarios: stays with ICANN, goes to PTI, goes into trust (IETF, mutual trust). Does CWG care? Would it work equally well with all three scenarios or is there a difference? Sidley could potentially look at what the difference would be between these different scenarios ensuring unrestricted use post-transition as well as post a possible separation, and what impact it could have on the use of the trademark to allow CWG to decide whether or not it should/needs to take a position (e.g. support IETF proposal or suggest an alternative). Also consider contacting ICANN to obtain further information concerning how mark is currently used. 
• Next steps to be further considered by CWG during its call later today. 

2. Potential assistance with or co-ordination of any ICANN bylaws related work such that the CCWG Accountability work is sure to meet the requirement of the CWG Stewardship

• Will bylaws be drafted by CCWG or CWG? Would CWG sign-off on work of CCWG or does CWG offer a proposed draft?
• Important to understand on which model the CCWG decides following the Paris meeting. 
• Sidley: CWG should draft bylaws that are CWG specific, even though there is overlap between the two groups and support provided by the legal times. Important to understand the context and ensure that they meet the CWG needs. Further info on CCWG model will be necessary, but certain parts can already be developed by CWG (for example, creation of PTI). Two sets of bylaws: those that specifically relate to the work of the CCWG and those that specifically relate to the creation of the new mechanisms as proposed by the CWG. Are there certain ones that would fall in between? May be worth asking Sidley to  create a schedule / matrix to help determine where they belong? CWG-Stewardship to further consider this during its meeting later today.
• Are there any sensitivities around the CWG drafting bylaws? Probably not in relation to the more 'technical' ones such as relating to PTI, IFR, etc. CCWG probably not willing/able to take on those bylaws that relate only to mechanisms proposed by the CWG with no direct link to CCWG work.
• Indicative costs for assistance from Sidley on development of a draft of the bylaws would be needed. 

3.  Considerations which will need to be given when contemplating any assistance (from Sidley) as the CWG (or a successor group) role in implementation becomes clearer.

Transcript

Transcript Client Comm 9 July.docx

Transcript Client Comm 9 July.pdf

Recordings

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9mdejav8rf/

The MP3 recording is available here:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/xxcwt4n3gor6624obp97tsapl9pn0qzr.mp3

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (7/9/2015 08:39) Welcome to the Client Committee Meeting on July 9.

  Sharon Flanagan: (08:55) Good morning / good afternoon

  Brenda Brewer: (08:56) Hi Sharon!

  Jonathan Robinson: (09:00) Hello All

  Greg Shatan: (09:00) Hello all.  Dialing in now.

  Greg Shatan: (09:00) I am in.

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:02) yes

  Lise Fuhr: (09:03) I am on audio now

  Brenda Brewer: (09:05) We can hear you typing Jonathan.

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:10) exactly

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:12) I think that's a  good idea

  Greg Shatan: (09:14) I dropped down the queue to let Sharon go....

  Greg Shatan: (09:19) I think the ICANN board's note only appeared on the ICG email list.

  Marika Konings: (09:20) Board statement can be found here: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-July/000814.html

  maarten: (09:29) I dont understand the importance of the mark. we simply rename IANA if necessary. or do i miss something ?

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:30) Can someone confirm we are not on the CWG call today?  I don't have on my calendar.  Just want to be sure.  Thanks

  Lise Fuhr: (09:30) @Maarten it is important for the other communities not the naming

  maarten: (09:31) so why spend time on it

  Lise Fuhr: (09:31) @Maarten because we need to have a common solution for all three communities

  Greg Shatan: (09:32) The IANA brand is the known name for the services in question, and it is known by that name worldwide.

  Greg Shatan: (09:33) We could conceivably change the name, but that has its own ramifications.  Consider that many IETF RFCs refer to "IANA" in the implementation of their proposals.

  Greg Shatan: (09:35) A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.  But if I changed the name of the rose to poiuyt, it would take you a while to make the association to that thing you call a rose.

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:35) happy to do that

  Lise Fuhr: (09:35) Very good - thank you

  maarten: (09:35) no

  maarten: (09:35) thanks

  Sharon Flanagan: (09:36) Thanks

  maarten: (09:36) bye

  Greg Shatan: (09:36) THanks, Jonathan