Ray,
Thanks for following up on this.
On 17 Jul 2016, at 09:51, Ray Pelletier rpelletier@isoc.org wrote:
The Trust preference is one Community Agreement executed by all the communities. And it would be best it seems to me if all were commenting on these docs at the same time, rather than in separately in parallel, or serially.
What I was suggesting was that we include on one list the representatives from the RIR, IETF, and Names communities to review the Community Agreement and License documents.
I agree that that we should all comment in parallel, and I think that we have already agreed on a single community agreement.
I suggest that the existing iana-ipr list is an appropriate venue; it’s already readable by the public (both via the archive at https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/ and via the possibility of read-only subscription.
We can easily add more subscribers with posting rights. As I said in June, I think that lawyers from all communities should be subscribed. It’s probably also time to get more participation from ICANN.
As for a timeline, based on an assumption that the documents should be ready to execute on 30 September, the Trust was working from this timeline:
7 July Negotiation commences with all parties
8 August Trust agreements reached with all parties All Agreements published for community comments for 30 days (At a minimum for IETF community)
12 September Community Comments Period Ends IETF community recommends modifications/no changes Other communities recommend modifications/no changes Trust considers recommendations and makes changes/no changes Trust publishes response to comments and republishes Agreements
30 September Execution of all Trust Agreements Trust with ICANN - IPR Transfer Trust with PTI - License trademarks and domain use Trust with Operating Communities (RIRs, Names, IETF)
Does that Timeline make sense?
Yes, I think that makes sense, although I am not clear on whether licences should be granted to PTI, or to ICANN with the ability to sub-license. That may differ from one community to another.
As to making the documents “public” at this time. We had thought that working through the details with the Community Reps and reaching acceptability among us, then going “public” in our respective communities for feedback, then getting the reps back together to discuss the docs would work for a process.
Does that process make sense?
Technically, the documents are already available to the public, via the archives of the iana-ipr list. However, they have not been explicitly drawn to the attention of any of the operational communities.
Personally, I am fine with starting the formal public comment period after there is internal agreement within the iana-ipr group.
Alan Barrett