Re: [Ianaplan] meeting minutes posted

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the share, just a few comments/question below(perhaps Andrew
could help clarify):

Andrew: It's overspecified because one party insisted that it be
overspecified.

SO: It will be good know if this poses any future challenge so it can be
resolved now. I also personally feel(and mentioned it on the party list)
it's indeed too specific but it will be good to know that the level of
specification does not pose any restriction for the Trust operate
effectively.

John Levine: Who will pay for incremental costs for trademark maintenance
fees?

Andrew: That is a problem and I don't think we have agreement about that.
It seems like the Trust; ICANN has suggested that they set aside some fees,
but that's not in writing.

SO: Oops, there is a text within section C of the draft shared some time
ago, quote below:

"....ICANN will file all necessary assignment documentation with all local,
national and regional offices in which the IANA IP is registered including,
without limitation, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the registrar
for iana.org(GoDaddy), and will pay all fees associated with such filings. "

Does the above not include future maintenance? If no, is there an intent to
include wording that guaranty funding in the section C agreement?

John: There are no written operational rules for the CCG, like what makes a
quorom.

SO: I think that would/should a separate document and not part of the
agreement though could be referenced. Nevertheless, yes I agree the
OP/Charter for CCG is indeed required.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Apr 2016 9:53 p.m., "Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Thanks to Eliot to minute the meeting. Please find the meeting minutes for
today:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/minutes/minutes-95-ianaplan

Please send changes to the co-chairs ([e-mail])

Marc.

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan