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

IPR assignment draft
by Andrew Sullivan 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Hi, I forwarded this once before, but I'm nervous that I might have forwarded the wrong version -- I _did_ forward the wrong version of something else recently, after all. So I'm forwarding this again, just so that we're clear about what we're talking about. This is really a proposal for an agreement between the Trust and ICANN, so in principle it shouldn't really require much in the way of attention by people here. But we want to be transparent and, as you can see, this is pretty straightforward. We're a little concerned that we're having a hard time getting responses from our correspondents on the ICANN staff, so if anyone has the opportunty to tickle them on this topic we'd appreciate it. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1

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 29 Jul '16

29 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 29 Jul '16

29 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

Fwd: Call next week for IANA IPR
by Greg Shatan 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Please see below. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Call next week for IANA IPR To: "jrobinson(a)afilias.info" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Andrew Sullivan < ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> Cc: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr(a)etno.eu>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>, " jhofheimer(a)sidley.com" <jhofheimer(a)sidley.com>, Brenda Brewer < brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>, "contreraslegal(a)att.net" <contreraslegal(a)att.net>, "sob(a)sobco.com" <sob(a)sobco.com>, "rpelletier(a)isoc.org" <rpelletier(a)isoc.org> Dear all, I do not have posting rights for the IANA IPR mailing list. Please feel free to forward this message to that list if you would like to do so. In the meantime, I have pulled together a doodle poll for the 25, 26, 27 July at times that are manageable across European and North American time zones. I have included the IETF Trustees in this email as well as Brenda Brewer who will assist with scheduling a call from ICANN. The doodle poll is here: http://doodle.com/poll/ggywcfz93hev8q87. We will close the Doodle poll on Friday (or as soon as we get 60% in favor of one slot). I understand that many of you are busy with the IETF this week, but please take some time to fill out the poll with your availability. Best, Grace -- Grace Abuhamad Manager, Public Policy ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 On 7/18/16, 8:02 AM, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> wrote: Hi Andrew, That should be fine. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: 'Andrew Sullivan' [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 18 July 2016 12:23 To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Cc: 'Grace Abuhamad' <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>; 'Lise Fuhr' < fuhr(a)etno.eu>; 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>; 'Greg Shatan' < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; 'Maarten Simon' <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>; jhofheimer(a)sidley.com Subject: Re: Call next week for IANA IPR Could we just add them to the ipr mailing list? There will be before the end of the week three more people from the IETF (none of whom are Trust members), and it'd be better if people just got this via the list they're expecting. Thanks, A On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:18:39PM +0100, Jonathan Robinson wrote: > Hi Grace, > > > > On reflection, it may be a good idea to offer the poll on Mon, Tues and possibly Wed 27th so as to ensure maximum participation. > > > > Here are the contact details: > > > > Jorge Conteras contreraslegal(a)att.net <mailto:contreraslegal@att.net> > > Scott Bradner sob(a)sobco.com <mailto:sob@sobco.com> > > Ray Pelletier rpelletier(a)isoc.org <mailto:rpelletier@isoc.org> > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org] > Sent: 15 July 2016 20:11 > To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>; Andrew Sullivan > <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com> > Cc: Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net>; Greg > Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; Maarten Simon > <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl>; jhofheimer(a)sidley.com > Subject: Re: Call next week for IANA IPR > > > > Thanks all. I’ll get a doodle poll ready for Monday 25 July. > > > > To help in setting up the poll: > > * Most folks are located in Europe and the US. Is anyone in Asia Pacific? > > * Can you provide me with Ray and Jorge’s emails? > > > > I have included Josh Hofheimer from Sidley in this email. Josh, can you let us know if you are available for a call on the 25th of July regarding IANA IPR agreements? > > > > Thank you, > > Grace > > > > -- > > Grace Abuhamad > > Manager, Public Policy > > > > ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 > > Direct: +1 202 249 7545 | Mobile: +1 310 200 7638 > > > > Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? > > LEARN MORE <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> . STAY UPDATED <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#status> . FOLLOW < https://twitter.com/icann> . ENGAGE < https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability#involved> . > > > > From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info > <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info> > > Date: Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com > <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> > > Cc: Lise Fuhr <fuhr(a)etno.eu <mailto:fuhr@etno.eu> >, Jari Arkko > <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> >, Grace Abuhamad > <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> >, Greg > Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >, > Maarten Simon <maarten.simon(a)sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl> > > Subject: Re: Call next week for IANA IPR > > > > Thanks Andrew. It may be better to go for Monday the following week. > Jonathan > > On 14 Jul 2016 21:08, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 04:47:42PM +0000, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > > > > I have been asked to set up a call next week for IETF Trustees and Names reps to go over the IANA IPR work. I have two questions for you: > > > > > > > > 1. Who should be invited to the Doodle for this call? As of right now, I have your names, but I’m not sure if there are others that you would like to add. > > > > We were trying to sort that out in the IAB, but Jorge Contreras and > Ray Pelletier and someone else are definitely going to be on the list. > > > 2. I know next week a very busy week with the IETF meeting. Can you provide me with some times that work for you at the outset? This way I can create a more targeted Doodle and avoid times that will be non-starters for IETF meeting attendees. > > > > There is now no time that I can realistically agree to do this next > week that isn't Friday afternoon 17:00 Berlin time (or later). > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> > -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

6 15