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

Agenda for 29 Feb
by Alan Barrett 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

Please suggest agenda items for the next call on 29 Feb 2016. I see the following items in the notes from the previous meeting on 15 Feb: * Announcement to operational communities that they may view the draft in Google Docs at <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i…>. * Tentative acceptance of non-controversial edits * Edit the document to explicitly give ICANN the right to sublicense rights to PTI. * Edit the document to say that the IETF Trust will be registrant and admin contact, and ICANN will be tech contact. (Do we need to re-open that discussion, making ICANN only the tech contact and the Trust both registrar and admin contact?) * Edit the document to outline the requirements for multiple approvals for any change. * Edit the document to say that the IANA IPR Governance Council (“IIGC”) will have 3 representatives from each operational community. * Edit the document to clarify that exclusive licences will be restricted to use of the IPR in connection with provision of the IANA functions. * Edit the document to mention the cases of IANA registries not managed by ICANN, and non-IANA registries managed by the ICANN IANA department. Alan Barrett

3 4

Webex Details - IPR Teleconference Monday February 29th 6:00 AM UTC
by German Valdez 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

IPR Teleconference February 29th 2016 Monday, February 29, 2016 6:00 am | UTC| 1 hr Join WebEx meeting https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc3c2a1785025884e9dde0e15a6366… Meeting number: 708 019 002 Meeting password: iproc Join by phone 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) Access code: 708 019 002 Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=447800…

1 0

Notes from 15 Feb 2016
by Alan Barrett 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Notes from IANA IPR call, 15 Feb 2016, 21:00 UTC Present: - Alan Barrett (NRO) - Paul Wilson (NRO) - Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP) - Greg Shatan (CWG) - Jonathan Robinson (CWG) - Jari Arkko (IETF) - Andrew Sullivan (IAB) - German Valdez (Secretariat) Apologies: - Izumi Okutani (CRISP) - Lise Fuhr (CWG) 1. Mailing list read-only subscription by observers German confirmed that the iana-ipr(a)nro.net mailing list is open for subscription from the public, but is moderated in such a way that posts are allowed only from the small group of members. 2. Draft document read-only access by observers Greg confirmed that read-only access to the “Principle Terms” draft document in Google Docs was possible using this link: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i…> This link may be published. Members of this small group have all received a different link via email, which allows editing and commenting. 3. Tentative acceptance of non-controversial edits Jonathan confirmed that he and Lise had reviewed the document. All agreed that non-controversial edits may be tentatively “accepted” in the draft document in Google Docs. Acceptance of edits is not binding on any party. 4. Discussion of items that have been flagged in the document 4.1. Sublicensing rights It was agreed that the document should explicitly give ICANN the right to sublicense rights to PTI. 4.2. Registrar, registrant and admin contact for IANA domain names There was discussion on ICANN’s expressed desire for "operational control over the IANA.ORG domain”, and how to provide that. ICANN position, as stated in August 2015, is published at <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en>. It was agreed that the registrant of the IANA domain names must be the same as the owner of the IPR (to be the IETF Trust). It also seemed clear that ICANN should be both the administrative contact and the technical contact for the IANA domain names. Andrew suggested that some registrars provide services in which multiple approvals would be required for any operational change. He suggested that using such a registrar could provide ICANN with the assurance that they would have sufficient operational control. Jonathan suggested that we could allow multiple registrars the opportunity to bid on such a service. ACTION: Andrew to edit the document to outline the requirements for multiple approvals for any action by the registrar. 4.3. Size of IIGC The draft (seciton 2b) says "the RIRs, the IETF and the names community will each select [five (5)] representatives (the “IANA IPR Reps”) to serve on an IANA IPR Governance Council (“IIGC”).” There was general agreement that this should be changed to three (3) representatives from each of the three operational communities. 4.4. Exclusive license There was a long discussion on the implications of an exclusive license to ICANN. The IETF and the RIRs need to refer to the name IANA, and they might occasionally use the logo. Greg said that descriptive or nominative use of the name was allowed without a licence, but use of the logo might need a licence. Alan was concerned that granting an exclusive licence to ICANN would prevent the granting of a licence for another party to use the logo. Greg explained that exclusivity was restricted to a field of use, so granting an exclusive licence to ICANN for provideint the IANA services would not prevent granting a licence to another party to sue the logo for some legitimate reason. Greg also clarified that granting an exclusive licence to ICANN would prevent the IETF Trust from claiming to provide the AINA services, but would not interfere with the IETF Trust’s ability to use the marks in a descriptive way. ACTION: Greg to edit the document to clarify that the exclusive licence would be for a specified field of use. Andrew noted that there is an IANA registry that is not managed by ICANN (the ENUM registry managed by the RIPE NCC), and there is a non-IANA registry that is managed by the ICANN IANA department (the timezone database). Licencing would need to accommodate these and similar cases. ACTION: Andrew to edit the document to mention the cases of IANA registries not managed by ICANN, and non-IANA registries managed by the ICANN IANA department. 4.5. Ability for IETF Trust to use the marks This issue had been discussed under the previous agenda item. 4.6. Quality of service Greg clarified that the text in section 3b requiring “consistent quality at least equal to the quality of services offered by ICANN immediately prior to the transition” was a standard formulation. There does not seem to be a need to add more detailed quality rules to the document. 4.7. Request to engage a new IANA service provider The draft (section 3g) say "the Trust may request that the relevant operational community or communities begin the process to engage a new IANA service provider.” Jari had expressed a concern that a decision to engage a new IANA service provider shoudl come fomr the operational communities, not from the IETF Trust. Andrew said that there was a tension between the Trust’s need to perform quality control, and the need for the Trust to follwo the community’s wishes. Greg said that the term “request” had been chosen deliberately in an attempt to balance these two goals. Greg also said that this phrase should not be read in isolation, but in the context of the entire section 3g, which lists several escalation steps. There was general agreement that the affected operational communities should make the decision about engaging a new IANA service provider, and that this part of the “Principle Terms” draft should be brought to the communities’ attention during discussion. 4.8. Other issues No other issies were discussed. 5. Next steps The draft "Principle Terms” document should be discussed in the operational communities. This link to the document may be used: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i…> The next meeting will be in two weeks, on Monday 29 February at a time to be determined. This will be shortly before the ICSANN 55 meeting in Marrakesh. —

2 5

Doodle for next meeting time
by Andrew Sullivan 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Hi, I put up a doodle for the next meeting time, on 29 Feb only, as agreed. http://doodle.com/poll/xvyp5emm9qa7tk2k Because for some reason doodle supports time zones but doesn't seem to have UTC as a possibility, I had to fill this in using a time zone, so I used my own. As a result, it goes from midnight UTC on the 29th to midnight US Eastern time on the 30th, because I have such a short attention span that I forgot what I was doing half way through. This is what an espresso machine in your house brings. I've filled it for myself, but note that the entries are sort of guesses. I'm travelling that day (I will go to Toronto and then drive down to Niagara to see my parents before flying to the ICANN meeting). Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs(a)anvilwalrusden.com

6 10

Agenda for 15 Feb 2016
by Alan Barrett 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

Here’s a proposed agenda for today’s call. Right at the end, I also posted the WEBEX details. Alan Barrett Proposed agenda for IANA IPR call, 15 Feb 2016 1. Mailing list read-only subscription by observers Review action item from the previous meeting: German Valdez to investigate the technical feasibility of allowing open read-only subscription, and to implement it if it is easy. This has been done. 2. Draft document read-only access by observers Review action item from the previous meeting: 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. Is there a URL that we can publish on the mailing list? 3. Tentative acceptance of non-controversial edits Confirm that Jonathan and Lise have reviewed the document. Confirm that non-controversial edits may be tentatively accepted, noting that acceptance is not binding on any parties. 4. Discussion of items that have been flagged in the document 4.1. Sublicensing rights We agreed that the licence should be to ICANN. Do we have to explicitly grant ICANN the right to sublicense? 4.2. Registrar, registrant and admin contact for IANA domain names The draft doesn’t mention the registrant for the IANA domain names. Should it be the IETF Trust? The draft specifies the IETF Trust as the administrative contact. There’s an open issue about whether ICANN should be the admin contact, to satisfy concerns about stability. There’s an open question about whether a registrar other than GoDaddy is needed, to provide a suitable level of control over which parties can make which changes. This issue is touched on by sections 1b and 3d of the draft. 4.3. Size of IIGC The draft (seciton 2b) says "the RIRs, the IETF and the names community will each select [five (5)] representatives (the “IANA IPR Reps”) to serve on an IANA IPR Governance Council (“IIGC”).” Comments have suggested that the 5 representatives per community shouod be reduced to 3 or 2. 4.4. Exclusive license The draft (section 3a) offers an exclusive license to ICANN. We discussed this at the meeting on 8 February 2oa6, but perhaps more discussion is needed on how the IETF Trust and the three communities will be able to use the marks if there’s an exclusive license ot ICANN. 4.5. Ability for IETF Trust to use the marks The draft (section 3a) says "provided that the Trust will not have the right to use, display or reproduce the IANA marks”. There’s a quetion about why this is desirable. 4.6. Quality of service The draft (section 3b) says “consistent quality at least equal to the quality of services offered by ICANN immediately prior to the transition”. Is this sufficiently clear, especially to readers several years in the future? 4.7. Request to engage a new IANA service provider The draft (section 3g) say "the Trust may request that the relevant operational community or communities begin the process to engage a new IANA service provider.” There’s a comment that the Trust could inform that communities that there’s an issue with IPR, but the decision about whether a new IANA operator is needed shouls come from the communities. 4.8. Other issues 5. Next steps WEBEX details: IPR February 2016 2nd Teleconference Monday, February 15, 2016 9:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 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…

2 2

Link for viewing the Principal Terms document for IANA IPR
by Greg Shatan 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

This link will allow the user to view the "Principal Terms" document for IANA IPR https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i… Greg

1 0

ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
by Nurani Nimpuno 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

As ICANN’s statement on the IPRs came up during our call now, below is the statement from August 2015. Nurani https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en ICANN Statement Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) ICANN supports the IANA Stewardship Transition Group (ICG) proposal and the underlying proposals from the Community Working Group (CWG), the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team and the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition (IANAPLAN) working group. The ICANN Board is focused on how to implement the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) component of the proposal. The Board believes that for stability and pragmatic operational reasons, the IANAFunctions Operator must have operational control over the IANA.ORG domain. During the transition, ICANN is prepared to transfer full ownership of the IANA-related trademarks to a neutral third party mutually agreed among the operational communities with the understanding that ICANN, as the current IANA Functions Operator, will be granted license to those trademarks and ICANNwill maintain operational control of the IANA.ORG domain for as long as ICANN remains the IANAFunctions Operator. If the transfer during the transition affects the timeline, we advise delay until after the transition. In that event ICANN is ready to hold the IPR as interim measure but commits to transfer it within 120 days after the neutral third party is identified by the operational communities. We believe this is neutral and in the public interest. We look forward to hearing from anyone in the community.

1 0

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

16 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 10 Feb '16

10 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