July 2016 - Iana-ipr - nro-apps-2.ripe.net

IANA IPR Community Agreement and License Agreement drafts
by Jorge Contreras 03 Aug '16

03 Aug '16

Dear colleagues, We have attached for your review clean and redlined versions of the Community Agreement and License Agreement, which have been marked against the versions distributed on July 5. We have inserted numerous comments in the marked version using the MS Word comment feature. These comments are intended to address specific text or suggestions made by CWG, RIR or IETF during the last round. In these candidate agreements, we have accepted a number of suggestions both the operational communities. We know that everyone is anxious to get these done, and many of the changes seem to us to be reasonable and in keeping with the Trust¹s responsibilities. What we have not accepted, and what we do not believe we can accept, is any arrangement in which the Trust is subject to "approvals" by the CCG. We remain convinced that such acceptance would be contrary to the Trust's anticipated fiduciary responsibility as the holder of the Marks, and the Trustees cannot responsibly expose the Trust to such a threat. We believe that any independent trust would face this problem. In addition, we do not think that, given the terms of our Trust Agreement, the Trust is capable of acting as a "steward" for other operational communities. The existing Trust Agreement also does not permit the Trust to transfer away any asset once it is owned by the Trust, so we cannot accept any term that anticipates such a transfer. We realize that some people would prefer to amend some terms of the IETF Trust Agreement. That may be possible in the future in order to accommodate some of the above worries. But all changes have to go through the IETF consensus process, and there simply isn't time to do that this year. Hence our agreement must work with the Trust as it currently exists. We hope that you will agree that we are making substantive and collegial process here, and we hope you understand that the existing terms of the Trust Agreement are a hard limit on what we may possibly do. We look forward to additional comments and to a fruitful discussion on our next call. Jorge L. Contreras Contreras Legal Strategy LLC 1711 Massachusetts Ave. NW, No. 710 Washington, DC 20036 contreraslegal(a)att.net The contents of this message may be attorney-client privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message immediately.

5 5

CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
by Hofheimer, Joshua T. 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Thank you to all the participants on the IANA-IPR call earlier today. Attached please find comments by the CWG to the IANA IPR License and the Community Agreement, clean and marked to show changes from the originals forwarded to CWG. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions and we look forward to our discussion next week. Best regards, Josh JOSHUA T. HOFHEIMER Partner SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP +1 650 565 7561 (PA direct) +1 213 896 6061 (LA direct) +1 323 708 2405 (Cell) jhofheimer(a)sidley.com<mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com> [SIDLEY] **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************

8 13

Where are the trust remarks?
by Andrew Sullivan 29 Jul '16

29 Jul '16

Hi, We'd hoped quite a lot to have the response from the Trust to the group by now. Unfortunately, we have an awful lot of trustees travelling and on vacation right now, and as a result the necessary review from the Trust hasn't happened. We have a commitment that all such review will be done by noon EDT tomorrow, and I shall send some remarks and the Trust's remarks about the proposed changes shortly thereafter. I apologise that we're holding things up into the weekend. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Re: [Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
by Greg Shatan 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Again resending a message without cc's that got bounced for having too many. Greg On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Athina, > > Thanks for your email. I agree with you, but I don't think that anything > that we've suggested in the current draft would require the Trust to change > its structure. It's difficult to consider this as a general matter. If > there are particular aspects of the draft that seem to be in conflict with > specific aspects of the structure, we should be able to work around that to > find the closest functional equivalent consistent with the Trust's > structure. But we will need to be more concrete in order to close these > gaps. > > Greg > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Athina Fragkouli < > athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The RIRs are currently reviewing CWG comments and intend to send our >> feedback to the list. In the meantime we would like to highlight that, >> given the very tight time frame, the IETF trust in its current structure >> is the only pragmatic solution. >> > >> Any other alternative that can not be implemented within this time frame >> would jeopardize the success of the IANA transition and cannot be >> considered. >> >> With regards to CCG's role, we strongly support the view that it should >> have a role that would be in line with IETF Trust's current structure >> and accountability. We appreciate IETF Trust's inability to amend its >> structure within the given time frame and we urge all parties to focus >> their efforts on building upon the existing situation. >> >> Finally we would like to thank all parties for their commitment to the >> success of the IANA transition. >> >> Kind regards, >> Athina >> >> >> >> >> On 28/07/16 10:50, Greg Shatan wrote: >> > Alan, >> > >> > I have to disagree, for reasons stated at length in my response to >> > Alissa. The Principal Terms clearly state that the CCG has a role that >> > goes beyond mere advice, and I think some of that was lost in the first >> > draft. I also think it's incorrect to characterize the approval rights >> > that the CCG has (and which are expressly contemplated in the Principal >> > Terms) with regard to actions that the Trust wishes to take as a >> > "mechanism for controlling the Trust." As drafted, the Trust initiates >> > all of the actions it will take in connection with the IANA IPR. As >> > long as these actions are consistent with the views of the communities, >> > the Trust's actions will not be constrained at all. In no case is the >> > Trust being "controlled" (except arguably when it is directed to >> > terminate an IANA operator being terminated by an operational community, >> > and I think that is entirely understandable). I am somewhat surprised >> > that you would characterize even that critical action as intended to be >> > "informational." Clearly it has to be more than "informing," which >> > carries with it no element of how one might choose to respond to that >> > "information." >> > >> > The numbers community made two key points regarding the IPR in the >> > transition proposal: "IPR related to the provision of the IANA services >> > remains with the community" and that these assets must be "used in a >> > nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community." In >> > addition to being consistent with the Principal Terms, I believe these >> > drafts are well aligned with these two concepts. >> > >> > Rather than going on at any more length, I'll refer to my prior email >> > for more detailed thoughts. >> > >> > Greg >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett(a)afrinic.net >> > <mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > On 27 Jul 2016, at 04:24, Hofheimer, Joshua T. < >> jhofheimer(a)sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> wrote: >> > > >> > > Thank you to all the participants on the IANA-IPR call earlier >> today. Attached please find comments by the CWG to the IANA IPR License >> and the Community Agreement, clean and marked to show changes from the >> originals forwarded to CWG. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any >> questions and we look forward to our discussion next week. >> > >> > I have read these documents, and I am concerned that they appear to >> > constrain the actions of the IETF Trust far beyond what was >> > contemplated in the draft principal terms document which we all >> > reviewed. >> > >> > I believe that the CCG was intended to provide advie to the Trust, >> > and to provide a channel for informing the Trust when an operational >> > community changes their IANA operator, but not to be a mechanism for >> > controlling the Trust. >> > >> > Alan Barrett >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Iana-ipr mailing list >> > Iana-ipr(a)nro.net <mailto:Iana-ipr@nro.net> >> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Iana-ipr mailing list >> > Iana-ipr(a)nro.net >> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr >> > >> > >

1 0

Re: [Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
by Greg Shatan 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Resending without most cc's, since the mail software blocked this for having too many recipients. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew, > > A few brief replies inline. > > Greg > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> I am speaking for myself and _not_ for the Trust here. The Trust has >> not yet expressed a view of the position that the names community is >> taking, and I don't want anyone to mistake my remarks below as a >> position of the Trust. But I too was involved in the discussions that >> led to the Principal Terms and I think we may have different memories. >> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:33:09AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote: >> >> > comments and also find them somewhat troubling. The "Proposed Principal >> > Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements" document was worked out >> > among representatives of all the communities and the IETF Trust over >> many >> > months, and these comments seem to ignore or contradict many aspects of >> > that document, which formed the design and basis for preparing the >> actual >> > Community Agreement and License Agreement. >> >> I agree that we want to be true to the Principal Terms, but I think we >> need to be very careful with attempting to rely too hard on that >> document, because it also makes perfectly clear that the Trust is the >> ultimate controller here and that it is not subject to the CCG. >> >> I believe that the original drafts that were offered cleave to that >> principal, and that the position you are taking leans further toward >> empowering the CCG to direct the Trust in various ways. I also recall >> several occasions during the development of the Principal Terms in >> which you argued for a more formal or more supervisory role for the >> OCs -- a position that I and others then resisted as implying >> unacceptable modifications to the Trust Agreement or else to the way >> the Trust actually operates. It appears to me, if I may be quite >> frank, that you are attempting to reintroduce your position as part of >> the negotiations over this agreement. You're free to do that, but I >> am no more reconciled to that mode of working now than I was many >> months ago when we were hammering out the Principal Terms. >> > > My view is somewhat different. I think the first draft backed away from > a number of aspects of the Principal Terms. I think the Principal Terms > represented the balance and outcome of the discussions we all had about the > relative roles of the Trust and the communities/CCG. The intent of the > second draft was to move closer to the letter and concept of the Principal > Terms. If there are places where we missed the mark as well, I'm sure we > can correct for that together. I'll also say again that there are very few > instances where the CCG actually directs the Trust; in almost all > instances, the Trust takes the initiative subject to advice and approval > (but not in all cases) from the CCG. > > >> >> I believe I was crystal clear all along that the Trust needed to >> retain its abolute and independent control over the marks and domain >> names, because the advice I have is that that is the only way that the >> Trustees can ensure their ability to perform their fiduciary duty. > > > >> Speaking as someone on the pointy end of that duty, I feel the > > responsibility quite strongly. I believe that the Principal Terms say >> that the Trust holds the ultimate authority, and I do not believe that >> the draft you have circulated is quite as faithful to those Terms as >> you suggest. The Terms were always ambiguous on this matter, however, >> because we knew this was where the trouble was going to be. > > > I think what we need to do here is strike the right balance between the > CCG and the Trust. > I would say that we're not there yet, and that the answer lies somewhere > between the two drafts, so that we carry out the intentions of the > Principal Terms and the plans that preceded it, while respecting the > concerns of all parties. > > >> This is >> why many months ago I was pressing for us to move on to actual >> drafting, rather than polishing the Terms document until it was shiny. >> We chose not to do that, and now we have this problem. >> >> I'm confident that with good will all around we can come to an >> agreement in time. But to me, that agreement should not vest too much >> responsibility or authority in the CCG. The normal mode of operation >> of the IETF is to create bodies that do such work as is absolutely >> necessary, and no more. I think it's a good approach, and I think we >> should design an agreement here that encourages and maximises >> collaboration and minimises formal approval and authority. >> > > I also think we can get this done, and that there should not be "too > much" authority vested in the CCG/communities. But neither should there be > too little. I like the idea of encouraging and maximizing collaboration > and minimizing formal approval and authority. The more we can avoid > hierarchy -- in either direction -- the better. But collaboration requires > some shared responsibility and authority and the right balance between the > parties. That is the key. > > >> >> Best regards, >> >> A >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com >> > >

1 0

Agreement to use IETF Trust
by Alan Barrett 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Does the names community now agree that the IETF Trust is an acceptable home for the IANA IPR, or is there still any doubt? Alan Barrett

2 1

RIRs comments on Community Agreement and License Agreement
by Athina Fragkouli 27 Jul '16

27 Jul '16

Dear all, Please find attached the comments on the Community Agreement and on the License Agreement on behalf of the RIRs. We will be happy to discuss them and to address any questions you may have. Thank you. Kind regards, Athina Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: Next Steps on IANA IPR | 14:00 UTC | Tuesday, 26 July 2016
by Paul Wilson 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

________________________________________________________________________ Take the APNIC Survey - https://survey.apnic.net ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg(a)apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg Forwarded message: > From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> > To: Paul Wilson <pwilson(a)apnic.net> > Subject: FW: FW: Next Steps on IANA IPR | 14:00 UTC | Tuesday, 26 July > 2016 > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:13:34 +0000 > > Here you go! > > > > From: brenda.brewer(a)icann.org > When: 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM July 26, 2016 > Subject: FW: Next Steps on IANA IPR | 14:00 UTC | Tuesday, 26 July > 2016 > Location: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/mssi-projects; > tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535# > > > Just for haha’s > -----Original Appointment----- > From: Brenda Brewer > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:32 PM > To: Brenda Brewer; jrobinson(a)afilias.info; ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com; > fuhr (fuhr(a)etno.eu) jari.arkko(a)piuha.net; 'gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com'; > 'maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl'; Hofheimer, Joshua T.; contreraslegal(a)att.net; > sob(a)sobco.com; rpelletier(a)isoc.org; Resnick, Yael; Trang Nguyen; Yuko > Green; housley(a)vigilsec.com; alissa(a)cooperw.in; ted.ietf(a)gmail.com > Subject: Next Steps on IANA IPR | 14:00 UTC | Tuesday, 26 July 2016 > When: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-06:00) Central Time > (US & Canada). > Where: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/mssi-projects; > tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535# > Please join the following call: > “Next Steps on IANA IPR” on Tuesday, 26 July @ 14:00 – 15:00 UTC > -- Other time zones see > here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG+and+IETF+Trust…> > CALL DETAILS: > Link to Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/mssi-projects > Mobile: > tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535#<tel://1-719-867-0497,*,,5263384535> > Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the > option to Dial Out to your Phone. > Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if > needed). > After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, > please MUTE your phone. > This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 > again. > If you are unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via > phone: > List of International Dial-In Numbers: View dial-in > numbers<https://mtginfo.pgi.com/globalcallmanagement.asp?bwebid=9820041&cid=da6be6b…> > Participant Passcode: 526 338 4535

1 0

Some IETF community participants, and how we make subscribers
by Andrew Sullivan 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Hi, In order to make things a little tidier, three IETF participants who are _not_ IETF Trust members are going to participate in the discussions about the community agreements &c. This way, it will not be the case that the protocol parameters community participants are also members of the Trust with whom the agreement has to happen. (I guess obviously, this is a formal rather than practical distinction. Nobody thinks that anyone involved with the Trust would undermine the interests of any of the communities; and anyway, the whole idea of an agreement between the Trust and the IETF is a little absurd. But this is not that different from the somewhat funny situation with PTI and ICANN, and we're trying to keep the formalities as clean as possible so that nobody has any ground for complaint later.) Alissa Cooper and Russ Housley are already, I believe, members of this list. I don't know how to get them posting rights. Ted Hardie (copied, ted.ietf(a)gmail.com) is the third IETF person who'll be involved. How do I get him subscribed with posting rights? Alissa is an Area Director, and Russ and Ted are both IAB members. This is on purpose: they're all subject to recall under the usual IETF recall procedures for those positions. This is to ensure some measure of accountability. They'll also fill in the Doodle for the call next week, & I hope they'll be able to make it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

3 2

Call-in details
by Athina Fragkouli 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Hello all, I am afraid I don't have the call-in details. Could someone please send them again? Thank you, Athina Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0