Dear all,
Please see below the meeting notes and chat history from today’s IANA IPR follow-up call. The AC room recording
is now posted at
https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation under “Meetings & Work Sessions” section.
*** Meeting Notes ***
IANA IPR follow-up Call
Wednesday,10 August 16 @ 16:00 UTC
Please note this call will be recorded.
To mute or unmute your phone, press *6 (star 6)
Participants
Alan Barrett
Alissa Cooper
Andrew Sullivan
Ashok
Athina Fragkouli
Brenda Brewer
Greg Shatan
Jari Arkko
Jonathan Robinson
Jorge Contreras
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley)
Michael Abejuela (ARIN)
Ray Pelletier
Russ Housley
Samantha Eisner
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley)
Ted Hardie
Yael Resnick (Sidley)
Nathalie Vergnolle
Trang Nguyen
Yuko Green
Agenda:
1. Community agreement
2. License agreement
3. Assignment agreement
4. Solicitation note for public comment
5. Future work and call schedule
Notes:
1. Community agreement
·
PTI name to be updated throughout the agreements
·
IANA Names services to be added in appendix A as a placeholder
·
make sure the list of domains/subdomains is consistent accross the agreements
2. License agreement
·
1.26: remove "unanimously"
·
6.3: Discussed the trigger for termination. Reviewed and edited (Alissa will send her edits)
·
6.6.c reviewed and edited
·
Describe all 3 services in 3 license definitions
3. Assignment agreement
·
6.1 Number of years still being determined
·
4.5 "except as disclosed..." may raise questions.
·
Change title to "IANA IPR Assignment Agreement"
General directions for preparing docs for public comments:
·
clean text
·
no comments
·
eliminate brackets where possible
·
check for consistency accross all agreements
Final editorial reviews to be received no later than 19:00 UTC (3pm EDT) today.
Final clean copies to be sent at 21:00 UTC (5pm EDT) today.
4. Solicitation note for public comment
·
Group agrees to ICANN also referring to the public comment on ICANN's web site
·
Align title of agreements in cover note and files names
5. Future work and call schedule
ACTION (staff): doodle for a 1-hr call next week
Chat:
Andrew Sullivan: Hi all
Ashok: good evening from Ashok.Pleasure to join you all tonite.
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): Good morning/evening everyone
Jonathan Robinson: Hello everyone
Nathalie Vergnolle: Who is extension 6000?
Nathalie Vergnolle: And extension 9749?
Sharon Flanagan (Sidley): Probably Josh or Yael in our LA office
Greg Shatan: I've joined.
Ted Hardie: I am in both, that is.
Russ Housley 2: We should not use "encumberance" in the definition of "Encumberance"
Athina Fragkouli: thank you for this clarification. we are fine with the change
Alan Barrett: Sorry I am late. I had another meeting run over time
Greg Shatan: Jorge, you may have a lag in your email service, I sent the Community Agreement at 11:22 and received comments from others soon after. I will confess to sending comments on the License Agreement at noon exactly....
Ray Pelletier: Greg + 1
Jorge Contreras: Greg - I may indeed have a lag. Other than Russ's I have not seen other revisions. Can you collect any that you receive that did not go to the list?
Greg Shatan: These types of definitions are sometimes called "birds of a feather" definition.
Greg Shatan: IANA NAMES SERVICEThe IANA Names Service consists of (a)Management of the DNS Root Zone ; (b) Management of the .INT top-level domain; (c) Maintenance of a repository of internationalized domain name tables and label generation
rule sets; and (d) Provision of other services related to the management of .INT top-level domains, at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense.
Samantha Eisner: We're looking at Greg's proposal in ICANN as well to see if we have recommended edits; if our inputs have to wait for comment, that's OK
Jonathan Robinson: It make sense to put it in as placeholder text. Agreed.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): +1 Jonathan and Greg
Jonathan Robinson: We will seek to confirm / sign-off with CWG tomorrow.
Greg Shatan: Jorge, all I had was Russ telling me what PTI stands for.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Note, there has been some discussion of the Domain name exhibit and subdomains, so need to make sure they are consistent across the documents, and verified
Jorge Contreras: @ted - I think your point is under the License Agreement
Ted Hardie: @Jorge Yes, just clarifying that the ones listed here are IANA domains, not subdomains.
Ted Hardie: So they fall under a different set of discussions.
Ted Hardie: My apologies if that was not clear.
Andrew Sullivan: I don't believe so
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): It might be worth dropping a footnote for the versions going out for public comment that the schedules of IP are being verified and are in process.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): @Alissa, in addition to Sam's comment, in the Community Agreement, the Exhibit is intended to be descriptive, not limiting, so as to avoid having to amend the Community Agreement as new IP is created. The IP License
Agreement schedules are different and intended to be explicit and amended from time to time as new IP is created.
Alissa Cooper: ok
Samantha Eisner: I think it's really important for the license agreement, which is where the creation of subdomain discussion is housed
Greg Shatan: Suggested revision to IANA Names Services description: Delete last few words: ", at ICANN’s reasonable request and at ICANN’s expense"
Greg Shatan: Doesn't really fit in the description context.
Alan Barrett: 3.3 has plural "licenses" which should probably be singular "license granted hereunder"
Greg Shatan: Can we make it 60 days and call it a day?
Greg Shatan: It's only "commercially reasonable efforts"
Samantha Eisner: I'm confirming internally
Athina Fragkouli: we are fine with the timeframe whithin ICANN can accommodate the change
Alan Barrett: more generally there might be other definitions that need to be harmonised across the documents
Alan Barrett: (in addition ti the definition of NRO highlighted by Athina)
Russ Housley 2: Perhaps "promptly" would resolve this concern
Andrew Sullivan: I like that
Athina Fragkouli: either should be fine
Ray Pelletier: immednaitely, or as agreed to by the Parties to the License Agreement?
Athina Fragkouli: immediately or upon notice
Ray Pelletier: immediately, or as determined by the Licensor
Alan Barrett: as long as there's a way to give advance notice, and terminate the license aon the same future date as the service contract will be terminated
Ray Pelletier: Immediately, or as soon as a transition to a new provider is effected
Alan Barrett: Ray's text looks OK to me
Ted Hardie: I am somewhat concerned about the impact on any transition of making this simultaneous.
Athina Fragkouli: +1 Ray
Russ Housley 2: It is hard to imagine an OC that would not want there information at iana.org
Andrew Sullivan: It seems to me that the "upon notice" leaves the right around of freedom
Samantha Eisner: I did as well
Greg Shatan: Ted, we can't have two exclusive licenses of the same stuff. It needs to be simultaneous.
Andrew Sullivan: the Trust doesn't need to send notice until the time is ripe :)
Greg Shatan: I think that concurrent with the termination is better.
Greg Shatan: than concurrent with the new license.
Ted Hardie: @Greg but the same marks may not be used by a new provider.
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Requested revision..."(ii) a third party has been retained and is contractually obligated to perform the IANA Names Services immediately following the termination of this Agreement, Licensor shall terminate the
license in respect of the IANA Names Services effective upon (y) written notice to Licensee and (z) engagement of the replacement IANA Names Service provider.
Ted Hardie: Do they terminate if the new provider doesn't take them up?
Andrew Sullivan: they terminate no matter what yes
Alissa Cooper: agree with jorge, simultaneous termination makes sense.
Ray Pelletier: +1 Josh
Greg Shatan: Yes, because the old operator shouldn't be using the IPR anymore.
Alan Barrett: Agree with Ted, the old license should terminate whether or not the new service provider will use the same marks/domains
Greg Shatan: I think that's where we've ended up.
Alan Barrett: And I think the document is already aligned with this concept
Ray Pelletier: +1 Josh
Ray Pelletier: Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): Requested revision..."(ii) a third party has been retained and is contractually obligated to perform the IANA Names Services immediately following the termination of this Agreement, Licensor shall
terminate the license in respect of the IANA Names Services effective upon (y) written notice to Licensee and (z) engagement of the replacement IANA Names Service provider.
Russ Housley 2: @Josh: Should not apply to just Names
Jorge Contreras: Ted - we should leave it to the Community to decide when to pull the trigger
Ray Pelletier: +1 Russ
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): "...upon written notice to the Licensee and effective upon the date specified by the Relevant Community pursuant to the Community Agreement." [Defined terms to be confirmed]
Ted Hardie: @Jorge I agree. I just want the trigger for license termination to be termination of the services agreement
Samantha Eisner: @Ted, it's easy for numbers and protocols
Samantha Eisner: the service agreement equivalent is not the same for names
Alan Barrett: +1 Josh "effective upon the date specified by the Relevant Community"
Samantha Eisner: Suggestion - can we split into two model licenses - one for numbers/protocol parameters, one for names
Jorge Contreras: Sam - we have two separate paragraphs for this reason. But splitting into separate documents at this point seems like it will be problematic if it needs to be done by tomorrow.
Athina Fragkouli: yes
Jari Arkko: looks good here
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): Can see it well
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): +1 Alissa
Greg Shatan: Looks good to me.
Athina Fragkouli: I'm fine with this
Alan Barrett: Alissa's text is good
Alan Barrett: also fine with "date soecified by the Relevant Community" full stop, no reference to Community Agreement
Greg Shatan: Agree with Alan.
Samantha Eisner: that's fine for ICANN
Greg Shatan: Bingo.
Michael Abejuela (ARIN): yes can accommodate by not referencing the Community Agreement
Jari Arkko: looks better for me
Greg Shatan: Double bingo.
Alan Barrett: upon the date specified in said written notice
Athina Fragkouli: +1 Alan's suggested text
Ashok: I find Alan's text ok
Jari Arkko: fine with alan's text, fine with lawyers processing this further
Greg Shatan: I'm concerned with Alan's text, unless it refers to a notice from the Operational Community. It doesn't work if it refers to the notice generated by the Trust.
Andrew Sullivan: @Greg why not?
Alan Barrett: I think I was not careful enough to distinguish between written notice from community to Trust, and written notice from Trust to Licensee. Obviously the date in the notice from the community to the trust is the correct date,
but my words did nto express that
Greg Shatan: Because the whole point of this exercise is to tie this to the community's timing for ending the relationship with the service provider.
Samantha Eisner: legally, I'm fine with that
Alissa Cooper: I am fine with the punt.
Jorge Contreras: Andrew- we should be specific about the obligation if possible
Jorge Contreras: Punting only gives a party the ability to hold up progress later, which is especially risky if the parties are in a termination situation
Russ Housley 2: Maybe we can just delete "at no additional charge"
Andrew Sullivan: @Jorge: the problem is we _can't_ specify now how we're going to do it
Jorge Contreras: We just need words from the tech team regarding what the obligation should actually be
Andrew Sullivan: because to do that would require making a change now, which requires permission from NTIA
Alissa Cooper: the SLA already includes commitment to cooperate
Jorge Contreras: Always better to have a specific obligation than a claim that someone breached a vague obligation to cooperate
Alissa Cooper: Agree with Jari, I don't think we know what we will want to do in advance.
Samantha Eisner: From what we've heard earlier, we don't know what to say. There is the possibility that a new service provider would choose to deliver services differently, or not using the marks
Jorge Contreras: Sam - this paragraph only deals w/ subdomains, not the marks per se
Alan Barrett: Realistically, the work required to let some other opertor deal with some specific subdomain will be small enough that it's reasonable to require it to be done without charge. However, I'd also be fine with staying silent
about charges
Samantha Eisner: @Jorge, I agree, but I also took that the earlier statements to mean that there might be a choice in teh future to not even rely on iana.org (as one possibility)
Jari Arkko: +1 to what andrew is saying about the specificity, and I'm not sure I want more
Jari Arkko: Samantha: the text says "allow" -- if there's other tehnical future choices, those can be done instead.
Andrew Sullivan: by the licensee
Samantha Eisner: +1 Alissa
Andrew Sullivan: I think it should remain
Jari Arkko: i'd suggest keeping that part.
Samantha Eisner: I'd be more comfortable with that
Andrew Sullivan: and add "by the licensee"
Alan Barrett: I think "no additional charge by the licensee" was the intent, and it's fine to be specific
Ray Pelletier: 6.3 Licensor shall have the right to terminate the license in respect of the IANA Services upon written notice to Licensee; the effective date of the termination shall be the date specified by the Relevant Community.
Samantha Eisner: +1 to Alan
Alan Barrett: I think Greg's text handles this appropriately
Jari Arkko: Alan may have a point about the reference to "other services". Agree with Jorge that it woul need labeling of the text appropriately.
Ray Pelletier: any harm?
Jonathan Robinson: All. I need to step away now due to a prior committment. Apologies.
Alissa Cooper: @Jonathan can we chat for a second about the proces tomorrow?
Alissa Cooper: Was wondering what you anticipate from the CWG
Russ Housley 2: I prefer a document without brackets, if possible
Ray Pelletier: one number or another will prejudice the other party
Alissa Cooper: if this is the only bracketed item, perhaps we can not do brackets and just do a footnote (assuming a blank is there, not a number)
Ray Pelletier: N Years
Greg Shatan: We could put in both numbers -- the goalposts so to speak.
Russ Housley 2: how about "[3 or 5] years"?
Andrew Sullivan: I agree with Alissa that two numbers is worse than both
Andrew Sullivan: I think we'll get a lot of negative comments about this
Jari Arkko: ___(1) and then (1) number of years to be agreed later
Jorge Contreras: Maybe "X" or "N" instead of a blank will draw less attention
Greg Shatan: I was just typing what Jorge said.
Andrew Sullivan: no objection
Andrew Sullivan: I'm not worried about the less-attentive ;-)
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): or...[TBD] ?
Jorge Contreras: "X years [TBD}"
Samantha Eisner: ICANN is OK with that
Greg Shatan: 3:01 Eastern?
Greg Shatan: Happy to have Josh and Sam give a quick kiss to the dox.
Ray Pelletier: same for Trust for Noon ET
Ray Pelletier: could the list of the explanation be in the same order as the first list
Alissa Cooper: will do Ray
Jari Arkko: yes we will also inform our community at the IETF. at least mail, maybe also other forms of annonucements.
Samantha Eisner: +1 to Alissa
Jari Arkko: agree that it is in the document than at the covernote
Jari Arkko: wfm
Jorge Contreras: I will be in India next week and likely unavailable for a call. I will work with Sam via email on the indemnity period.
Greg Shatan: When's the Closing Dinner?
Greg Shatan: Will we get lucite deal toys?
Ray Pelletier: Thanks to Jorge, Josh and Sam in particular
Andrew Sullivan: thanks everyone!
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): thank you
Jari Arkko: thanks, all, thanks alissa.
Ted Hardie: thanks everyone
Josh Hofheimer (Sidley): thanks Alissa
Greg Shatan: Bye all!
Ashok: Thanks all
Samantha Eisner: Thanks
Greg Shatan: Yes, big thanks to the tricounsel
Athina Fragkouli: thank you all
******************
Thanks,
Nathalie.
Direct line: +1-310-578-8957
Mobile: +1-310-938-1037
Skype: nathalie.vergnolle.icann
Jabber:
nathalie.vergnolle@jabber.icann.org