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

Notes from 8 Feb 2016
by Alan Barrett 15 Feb '16

15 Feb '16

Notes from the IANA-IPR call of 8 february 2016 Present: - Alan Barrett (NRO) - Pul Wilson (NRO) - Izumi Okutani (CRISP) - Greg Shatan (CWG) - Lise Fuhr (CWG) - Jari Arkko (IETF) - Andrew Sulliovan (IAB) - German Valdez (Secretariat) Apologies: - Nurani Mimpuno (CRISP) - Jonathan Robinson (CWG) 1. Confirmation of quorum requirements. There was agreement that the quorum will be: * Greg Shatan (CWG) * One or both of Lise Fuhr or Jonathan Robinson (CWG) * One or both of Alan Barrett or Paul Wilson (NRO) * One or both of Izumi Okutani or Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP) * One or both of Andrew Sullivan (IAB) or Jari Arkko (IETF) 2. Mailing list archive We confirmed that the iana-ipr(a)nro.net mailing list is archived at <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/> and the archives are open to the public. 3. Mailing list subscription for observers There was discussion on allowing observers to subscribe to the mailing list. Observers are already able to read the archives, but some might find it more convenient to subscribe to the list. There was general agreement that the general public could be allowed read-only subscription to the iana-ipr mailing list, but posting would be restricted. ACTION: German Valdez to investigate the technical feasibility of allowing open read-only subscription, and to implement it if it is easy. 4. Access policy for draft Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements document on google docs There was a discussion on allowing public read-only access to the draft Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements which this group has been editing in google Docs. There was general agreement that public read-only access was desirable. ACTION: Greg Shatan to adjust the permissions and/or create new links as appropriate to allow this group to edit the document while allowing the public to read the document. 5. Confirm non-controversial edits. Alan Barrett suggested that edits made on or before 31 January 2016, which have not received comments, should be marked as “accepted”. It was clarified that the “acceptance” of edits would not be binding on any participants, but was chiefly intended to allow discussion to focus on important points without distraction from redline markup relating to points that have general agreement. The edit history would be available in Google Docs, and each community would still need to review any future version fo the document. Lise Fuhr indicated that she and Jonathan Robinson needed more time to review, before any edits were “accepted”. There was a discussion about revision control, and general agreement that the facilities provided by Google Docs were probably sufficient. However, additional snapshots sent to the mailing list would also be useful. ACTION: Greg Shatan to send snapshots of the document to the mailing list when he thinks it appropriate. ACTION: All to mark any edits or points that need further discussion, by Friday 12 February 2016. ACTION: Lise Fuhr to liaise with Jonathan Robinson to review the document as soon as possible. ACTION: Greg Shatan to “accept” non-controversial edits, after waiting until at least Friday 12 February 2016. 6. Discussion of other edits. The following three issues were discussed: 6.1. Licencing to ICANN or to PTI? There was general agreement that licensing to ICANN would be appropriate, with ICANN sub-licensing to PTI. 6.2. Exclusive or non-exclusive licence? Greg Shatan explained that an exclusive licence was appropriate, because ICANN or PTI would be the only provider of IANA services. He clarified that the licence would not be permanent or irrevocable, so it could be changed in the future. Further discussion is needed on this issue. 6.3. Planning for future changes in IANA operators Alan Barrett highlighted the need to plan for a potential future transition to one or more different IANA operators. 7. Next steps We will continue to work on the document in Google Docs. The next meeting will be next week, if possible. ACTION: German Valdez to set up a Doodle poll for a possible time during the week of 8 to 12 February 2016. Alan Barrett

3 3

Next IPR Teleconference Tuesday February 16th 5:00 AM UTC
by German Valdez 15 Feb '16

15 Feb '16

Hi Based on the input received on the poll, I’d propose to have the next IPR Teleconference on Tuesday February 16th at 5:00 AM UTC http://doodle.com/poll/afk85r7qdxkyucsh IPR February 2016 2nd Teleconference Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:00 am | UTC | 1 hr Join WebEx meeting https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m66c6d1badbe7d35024b26d0be2b87… Meeting number: 708 074 468 Meeting password: ianaipr Join by phone 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) Access code: 708 074 468 Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=444439… regards German

4 5

Doodle Poll February 8- 12
by German Valdez 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

HI As requested in the last meeting please complete the poll for next week teleconference http://doodle.com/poll/afk85r7qdxkyucsh Regards German

1 1

8 February Snapshots of IPR Document
by Greg Shatan 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

All, I attach Word and PDF snapshots of the document as of now. Please note the following: 1. The Word document retains all of the "suggestions" and comments in the Google Doc. While the commenter's initials are not part of the comment, the identity can be revealed by mousing over the comment. 2. The PDF is a PDF version of the downloaded Word document. The "download as PDF" option in Google Docs does not show any of the suggestions or comments (i.e., it shows the original state of the document, plus any actual "edits" made to it), so I have not used this option to create the PDF. Greg

2 2

suggested changes that came up during IETF IANAPLAN list discussion
by Jari Arkko 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

We received two comments on the IANAPLAN discussion, and they look reasonable suggestions to me at least: 1. From Konstantinos Komaitis: > may I suggest one slight edit/amendment to consider in the following: > > c. The IETF Trust will hold, maintain and renew the IANA IP in accordance with good IP management practices and shall seek new territorial registrations based on the IANA IP as instructed by the IANA IP Reps. > > The language “good IP management practices” seems to be quite open-ended. Although every trademark owner should exercise, to the best of their abilities, good management of their IPR, there is no set framework of what this could mean — at least one that is generally acceptable or endorsed through law. So, this language could be subjectively interpreted to mean anything and it could, in theory at least, raise some potential issues of liability. I think it is important that the Trust does not do anything more than what the law prescribes in coordination with the operational communities. > > If I may suggest the following as an alternative - or something along those lines: > > c. The IETF Trust will hold, maintain and renew the IANA IPR in accordance with established legal requirements and shall seek new territorial registrations based on the IANA IPR as instructed by the IANA IP Reps and according to the applicable laws of each territory . 2. From John Levine: > For the most part I agree with the positive comments. > > >c. The IETF Trust will hold, maintain and renew the IANA IP in accordance with good IP management practices and > >shall seek new territorial registrations based on the IANA IP as instructed by the IANA IP Reps. > > I wouldn't be comfortable with "as instructed by" because I've seen > some impressively odd stuff from ICANN's lawyers. Also, there's the > chronic problem of lawyers telling you to spend $1000 to avoid a $100 > risk. (These are specifically not directed at the IETF's lawyer, who > understands things just fine.) > > I'd suggest "in consulation with" or similar language, to indicate > that the trust will listen to them but not take orders from them. > > As likely as not, it's not even legal to take orders from them, since > that leads to perverse results if one of the IP reps tells the trust > to do something that the trustees consider contrary to the purpose of > the trust or not in the interest of the other beneficiaries. followed up by me: > A good point, and I like your wording. In any case, the text that I posted > is very high-level language that needs to be realised in more detailed > contracts, but I think we are aware of your point. > > Also, “IANA IP Reps” refers to the operational community > representatives, so it isn’t necessarily lawyers. These are the communities > telling the trust something, in relation to their expectations. But > yes, as a general rule, leadership of any organisation needs to > be aware of the 1000 vs. 100 issue your raised. And John’s suggestion in general agreed by Stephen Farrell and Avri Doria. Jari

1 0

Agenda for 8 Feb 2016
by Alan Barrett 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

Here’s a proposed genda for this morning’s call. 1. Confirm quorum requirements The earlier discussion seemed to suggest: * Greg Shatan * One or both of Lise Fuhr or Jonathan Robinson (CWG) * One or both of Alan Barrett or Paul Wilson (NRO) * One or both of Izumi Okutani or Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP) * One or both of Andrew Sullivan (IAB) or Jari Arkko (IETF) 2. Confirm open archive at https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/ 3. Access policy for draft Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements document on google docs Should it be world readable? If so, then should editing be restricted? 4. Confirm non-controversial edits. I suggest that edits made on or before 31 January 2016, which have not received comments, should be accepted. 5. Discuss other edits. 6. Next steps. Alan Barrett

1 0

Quorum and next meeting
by Alan Barrett 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

Dear all, On quorum, I think we have estabished that we need participation from: * Greg Shatan * One or both of Lise Fuhr or Jonathan Robinson (CWG) * One or both of Alan Barrett or Paul Wilson (NRO) * One or both of Izumi Okutani or Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP) * One or both of Andrew Sullivan (IAB) or Jari Arkko (IETF) Based on the doodle poll at <http://doodle.com/poll/ph2iakpvbkkrvfwr> I suggest that we hold the next call on Monday 8 Feb 2016, at 06:00 UTC. A few people have not yet filled in their availability for that time, but thoe who have filled in the poll are already sufficient for us to have quorum. Alan Barrett

5 4

Doodle Poll February 2016
by German Valdez 03 Feb '16

03 Feb '16

Hi Please complete the poll for next week teleconference http://doodle.com/poll/ph2iakpvbkkrvfwr regards German

6 15

Notes from 27 January 2016
by Alan Barrett 29 Jan '16

29 Jan '16

Notes from the IANA-IPR call of 27 January 2016 Present: - Alan Barrett (NRO) - Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP) - Greg Shatan (CWG) - Lise Fuhr (CWG) - German Valdez (Secretariat) 1. In view of the limited attendance, there was agreement not to have a lengthy discussion. 2. There was agreement that the archives of this mailing list <iana-ipr(a)nro.net> are to be open to the public. 3. Lise Fuhr reported that the CWG had confirmed (during a call on 21 January) that “functional neutrality” was sufficient, and that the IETF Trust was an acceptable holder of the IANA IPR. 4. Greg Shatan has shared a link to a google docs version of the draft principal terms document. Alan Barrett had been unable to open the document. Greg will share the link again. 5. We will discuss quorum requirements on the mailing list. There was general agreement that at least one representative from each of the three communities should be present. 6. We will hold another call next week. A doodle poll will be arranged for some time on 3, 4, or 5 February 2016. Alan Barrett

2 1

Re: [Iana-ipr] Notes from 20 Jan 2016
by Greg Shatan 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

All, A note before our call regarding moving forward on the "Principal Terms" document. 1. If we think it is fruitful, we can walk through the entire document. This may be a bit of a slog, and so may not the best use of time. 2. After the call, I would like to "accept" the suggested edits I've made. However, if there are any suggested edits that require further discussion, we can leave those up as suggestions until they are resolved. 3. As such, it would be good to identify suggested edits that require further discussion. I may not be the best judge of that, since I tend to think that my edits make sense. However, I recognize that these may include: 1) Quality control (including role of communities) 2) Change of IPR holder in case of not meeting the needs of the OCs 3) The IETF Trust can unilaterally terminate the agreement 4) Relationship of communities to each other and to the Trust (including proposed "Governance Council") 5) Management and operation of domain name(s) (not necessarily controversial, but needs to be expanded/filled in) 6) Funding (the document is silent on this, except that it contemplates that the Trust bears the usual costs of a trademark owner) I expect we will also discuss process/next steps. We should consider when we would like input from ICANN legal. Since they will be a signatory to the Assignment Agreement, and their controlled affiliate (PTI) will be a signatory to the license agreement, we will need their feedback relatively soon. I look forward to our call. Greg Greg On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett(a)afrinic.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > As a reminder before our next call, here are Izumi’s notes from the > previous call on 20 Jan. > > Alan Barrett > > ——————— > Dear all, > > > Key points at the 20th Jan call below. I welcome feedback in the coming > 48h - until UTC23:59 22nd Jan. > Beyond this, please feel free to share in your respective OCs as needed. > > > *Action Items:* > - Greg to create Google Docs for OCs to work on "Example Principal Terms" > - the protocols (Andrew/Jari) will provide written explanations on terms > which were highlighted to need further coordination: > 1) Quality control > 2) Change of IPR holder in case of not meeting the needs of the OCs > 3) the IETF Trust can unilaterally terminate the agreement > - RIRs to coordinate the schedule of next Coordination call(s) > > > *Agreed status:* > > - Work based on functional neutrality, no need to seek for structural > neutrality. The iETF Trust to be the holder of IPR IANA and iana.org > domain > (Preliminary agreement at the CWG, to be finalised at the next CWG call > on 21st Jan) > > - The three OCs continue to coordinate to work on "Example Principal Terms" > > - Work of CWG IPR-DT is completed. The group is no longer active while its > members are expected to active in the CWG for further IPR discussions > > - For the numbers, from this point RIR takes over the responsibility of > coordination. > Nurani and Izumi from the CRISP Team continues to join as observers but > CRISP's role is completed as the three OCs has agreed on the princples and > the holder > > > *Confirmation about the scope and role of this Coordination group:* > > - This group makes coordination on "Example Principal Terms". > Work based on Google Docs, as a common document to work on > > - Beyond details of "Example Principal Terms", it will be handed over to > organisations responsible to work on implementation in respective OCs > We should be careful try not to go into details which require legal > expertise. > > > *Next Steps:* > > No changes from the draft circulated by Izumi prior to the call as below. > > * Week of 18th-22nd Jan > - 19th Jan: Discuss outstanding issues on Principle Terms, identify > actions/considerations needed in each OC > - Continue online feedback on Example Principal Terms from each OC > - CWG call (21st): Finalize agreement among the three OCs, to work based > on functional neutrality and the IETF Trust? > > * Week of 25th-29th Jan > 26th Jan: NRO EC(RIR CEOs) call to discuss Principle Requirements > Suggestion for a Coordination call: Discuss new/unresolved outstanding > issues on the Principle Terms (if any). The suggested after 26th, to > receive input from the RIRs. > Fix draft Principal Terms to be suggested to the OCs > > * Week of 1th-5th Feb > Confirm consensus in each OC on Principle Terms > > > *Issues for further discussions on Example Principal Terms:* > > Greg has highlighted the terms which he observed where further > coordination is needed. > > 1) Quality control > 2) Change of IPR holder in case of not meeting the needs of the OCs > 3) The IETF Trust can unilaterally terminate the agreement > > Andrew/Jari will provide a written explanation on rationale and how the > issues can be addressed > > RIRs are still reviewing them and share any issues they observe ASAP. > > > Izumi > *Action Items:* > - Greg to create Google Docs for OCs to work on "Example Principal Terms" > - the protocols (Andrew/Jari) will provide written explanations on terms > which were highlighted to need further coordination: > 1) Quality control > 2) Change of IPR holder in case of not meeting the needs of the OCs > 3) the IETF Trust can unilaterally terminate the agreement > - RIRs to coordinate the schedule of next Coordination call(s) > > > *Agreed status:* > > - Work based on functional neutrality, no need to seek for structural > neutrality. The iETF Trust to be the holder of IPR IANA and iana.org > domain > (Preliminary agreement at the CWG, to be finalised at the next CWG call > on 21st Jan) > > - The three OCs continue to coordinate to work on "Example Principal Terms" > > - Work of CWG IPR-DT is completed. The group is no longer active while its > members are expected to active in the CWG for further IPR discussions > > - For the numbers, from this point RIR takes over the responsibility of > coordination. > Nurani and Izumi from the CRISP Team continues to join as observers but > CRISP's role is completed as the three OCs has agreed on the princples and > the holder > > > *Confirmation about the scope and role of this Coordination group:* > > - This group makes coordination on "Example Principal Terms". > Work based on Google Docs, as a common document to work on > > - Beyond details of "Example Principal Terms", it will be handed over to > organisations responsible to work on implementation in respective OCs > We should be careful try not to go into details which require legal > expertise. > > > *Next Steps:* > > No changes from the draft circulated by Izumi prior to the call as below. > > * Week of 18th-22nd Jan > - 19th Jan: Discuss outstanding issues on Principle Terms, identify > actions/considerations needed in each OC > - Continue online feedback on Example Principal Terms from each OC > - CWG call (21st): Finalize agreement among the three OCs, to work based > on functional neutrality and the IETF Trust? > > * Week of 25th-29th Jan > 26th Jan: NRO EC(RIR CEOs) call to discuss Principle Requirements > Suggestion for a Coordination call: Discuss new/unresolved outstanding > issues on the Principle Terms (if any). The suggested after 26th, to > receive input from the RIRs. > Fix draft Principal Terms to be suggested to the OCs > > * Week of 1th-5th Feb > Confirm consensus in each OC on Principle Terms > > > *Issues for further discussions on Example Principal Terms:* > > Greg has highlighted the terms which he observed where further > coordination is needed. > > 1) Quality control > 2) Change of IPR holder in case of not meeting the needs of the OCs > 3) The IETF Trust can unilaterally terminate the agreement > > Andrew/Jari will provide a written explanation on rationale and how the > issues can be addressed > > RIRs are still reviewing them and share any issues they observe ASAP. > > > Izumi > _______________________________________________ > Iana-ipr mailing list > Iana-ipr(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr >

1 0