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

Re: [Iana-ipr] Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements
by Izumi Okutani 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

German, can you confirm? If it's Webex as usual I think so but would be safe to wait for German's response. Izumi On 2016/06/28 6:59, Russ Housley wrote: > Will dial-in be possible? > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> wrote: > >> Thanks Jonathan. >> >> German, please help us find room for tomorrow Tue 28th June 1700 Helsinki time (UTC+3). >> >> >> Izumi >> >

8 10

Decisions to be made soon
by Alan Barrett 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

Arising from yesterday’s meeting, I would like the following decisions to be made soon: 1. Confirm that the IETF Trust is a suitable party to hold the IPR, without any changes to the Trust’s founding documents. I thought that we agreed in our call of 20 January 2016 that “functional neutrality” was sufficient, and there was no need for “structural neutrality”. These terms come from a document that was prepared by the CWG’s DT-IPR team <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151214/fe2b4621…>. I understood that CWG had also confirmed that decision in a meeting on 21 January 2016 <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/004629.html>. I am uncomfortable with Sidley’s apparent attempt to re-open that discussion in their “General comment to CWG” in their comments on the Proposed principal terms of IANA IPR <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/attachments/20160602/5752c65d/Redlin…>, and I would like us to confirm that there is no need for changes to the way the IETF Trust is constituted. 2. How many IPR license agreements? The original document said one license agreement in favour of ICANN, and had some complexities to deal with a possible future in which some but not all operational communities move to a different IANA services provider. The RIR legal team suggested three separate agreements for three parts of the IANA functions, which should make future changes easier. My preference is for three agreements, and I did not hear opposition to that idea, but I am not sure whether a decision was made. 3. Should IPR licenses automatically terminate when IANA service providers are changed? Assuming there are three license agreements, the RIR legal team has suggested that a license should immediately terminate when an operational community changes their IANA services provider, without the need for escalation or dispute resolution, because due process would already have been followed prior to changing IANA services provider. I think that this would make sense, but we did not discuss it on the call. 4. How many community agreements? The document says one or more: "An agreement or agreements between the IETF Trust and the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the “Operational Communities”) regarding the relationship between the Trust and each Operational Community and the relationship among the Operational Communities, including the Trust’s commitments, duties and obligations to each Community”. I think that three agreements would make sense. 5. Who takes the lead in drafting? I suggest that each community could take the lead in drafting a community agreement between their community and the IETF Trust, and the IETF Trust could take the lead in drafting all other agreements. Regardless of who takes the lead in drafting, each agreement will need to be approved by all affected parties. Alan Barrett

3 2

Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements
by Lise Fuhr 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

Dear All, The CWG first assumed that we would work in consecutive order with the IPR document and the legal advisors. We flagged this to this group, but since we apparently didn’t receive any legal input from either of you (please bear with us if we are wrong and resend any input) we went ahead and asked for legal advice on the document. We got this advice very recently and are about to send it to the CWG for discussion. In order to keep you informed we enclose the preliminary response from our advisors including their questions. If you have any response from your advisors please share them with us in order to continue the dialogue. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

9 38

Comments from RIR lawyers
by Alan Barrett 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

Forwarded messaged from the RIR legal team: > > The RIRs have reviewed the proposed principal terms regarding the IANA IPR > as it relates to implementation of the IANA transition. Overall, the > proposed document along with Sidley¹s comments appears acceptable with the > exception of a couple items listed below: > > (1) License between IETF Trust and Licensee (ICANN) - the principal terms > document calls for a single, exclusive license granted to Licensee (ICANN) > for the use of the IPR in connection with provision of the IANA functions > and services. Further, the terms provide that in the event that one or > two of the communities decide to engage alternative service providers for > their respective IANA functions, that the single license would be > partially terminated and additional licenses would be granted. While this > in theory is a workable solution for the situation of replacement service > providers, we believe a more straight forward and clean approach would be > to issue three non-exclusive licenses that are each individually exclusive > in scope of the uses for which the license is granted (namely the scope of > the three IANA functions respectively). This is a clean approach both in > terms of being specific as to the license granted in each instance as well > as not requiring that one community¹s license be affected if/when another > community decides to move to another service provider/licensee. In the > attached document, we have proposed alternate language regarding the three > licenses for review by this group. > > (2) While the escalation provisions in the principal terms document are > acceptable, there should be a provision regarding cross-default. > Essentially, the license granted from the IETF Trust to Licensee is > supplemental and incident to the provision of service by the service > provider to the respective operational communities. In this instance for > the Numbers Community and for the related IANA functions for the Numbers > Community, the service provider is bound to the terms of the SLA and > incident to the provision of service under the SLA, it is being granted > the License to IANA IPR to perform those obligations. In the event of a > termination of the SLA, there should be no need to engage in the > escalation provisions in the license and rather there should be an > automatic termination of the IPR license. In this context, this is also > another reason why item 1 above would make sense for implementation. > > The remaining principle terms are acceptable to the RIRs; however, we > would like our legal team involved with the drafting of the appropriate > documents for implementation of the principle terms. > >

1 0

The Trust is ok with the Principal Terms
by Andrew Sullivan 03 Jun '16

03 Jun '16

The Trust has determined that it could proceed with negotiating the relevant agreements to implement the transfer of the IPR according to the principles in the document we've already worked out. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

1 0

Any update on the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements?
by Lise Fuhr 02 May '16

02 May '16

Dear All, Jonathan and I have talked about if you could give us an update regarding the comments you received from your legal advisors regarding the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements. It would be very helpful and appreciated if we could have the comments to pass on to our legal advice. Best regards, Lise

2 2

Some suggestions from IANAPLAN today
by Andrew Sullivan 14 Apr '16

14 Apr '16

Hi, As you may know, the IETF is meeting this week, and we had an IANAPLAN meeting to make sure that we've not done anything inconsistent with the previously-established consensus. The support was in general positive. There are two items that I think we could consider putting in. First in the bit about the registration rules for iana.org and friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're talking about are status values in the shared registration system -- clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and clientTransferProhibited. I think this is just a clarification, and no big deal. A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting, and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other decision-making processes they use. A suggestion in the room was that the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of the communities must be present for quorum. I think this is a good principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no making up rules when a decision is needed). Does anyone object? Does it seem reasonable? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

4 4

PDF document for review
by Alan Barrett 21 Mar '16

21 Mar '16

I attach a PDF version of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, as a snapshot of the state when we agreed to ask legal counsel in the three communities to review the document. Alan Barrett

5 9

I am done with draft
by Andrew Sullivan 08 Mar '16

08 Mar '16

Hi, I think I'm done with the edits on the doc. I hereby offer 24 hours and then we can send to counsel? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

2 1

Notes from 7 Mar 2016
by Alan Barrett 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Notes from IANA-IPR meeting of 7 Mar 2016 Andrew has added several points under section C.1.d of the document, giving requirements for multiple approvals of changes. The main idea is that important changes should have consent from both the administrative contact and the technical contact, and any overrides by the registrant should be delayed by 5 to 10 days (number to be decided) to allow time for legal challenges to be made if necessary. We still need to communicate the implications of an “exclusive” licence. Greg suggested adding a footnote to the document. Lise asked for a separate document in addition. IANA IPR Governance Council (IIGC) will be renamed to “IANA IPR Community Coordination Group”, but we did not agree on an acronym. Andrew and Greg will make minor wording and typographical edits to the document, and then the three operational communities' legal teams will be asked for comments on the framework. After an initial legal review, each of the three operational communities will call for comments in their communities.

1 0