Notes from the IANA-IPR meeting of 29 February 2016
1. Review of changes agreed during the previous call.
1.1. Tentative acceptance of non-controversial edits.
Edits have been “accepted”.
1.2. Edits regarding right to sublicense rights to PTI.
Text has been edited. No further action is required.
1.3. Edits regarding regitrant, administrative contact, tech contact.
Text has been edited to say that the Trust should be the Registrant and Administrative Contact, and ICANN should be the Technical contact, for all IANA domain names.
There was a discussion on whether the administrative contact should be ICANN or the Trust. Andrew suggested that the ARPA TLD was an existing example of a similar arrangement, where the IAB is the registrant and the administrative contact, and ICANN (as the IANA operator) is the technical contact. There was agreement that a similar arrangement made sense for the IANA domain names.
The current draft document already specifies the Trust as both the registrant and administrative contat, and ICANN as the technical contact, and there is no need to change this.
1.4. Edits regarding multiple approvals.
Text has been edited to require approval from both the registrant and technical contact.
Andrew mentioned Mark Monitor as a possible service provider.
Greg mentioned CSC Corporate Domains and Cloudflare as possible service providers.
ACTION: Andrew and Greg to add comments to the document mentioning these possible providers of registry services that require multiple approvals.
1.5. Edits regarding number of members of IIGC.
Text has been edited to say 3 members from each operational community. No further action is required.
1.6. Edits regarding exclusive licence being restricted to use in connection with the provision of the IANA functions.
Andrew mentioned that comme questions had been raised in the IETF community. He suggested opening threads in the community mailing lists to discuss the issue of exclusive licences.
Greg suggested that we could write a “primer” document to help people understand different types of licences and their implications.
Lise suggested that we could do both.
Andrew said that one person’s question about “Why are we granting them exclusive control?” seemed to show confusion between control of the marks versus exclusive licence to use the marks.
Greg agreed to write a short document (a few paragraphs).
ACTION: Greg to write a short document on the implications of an exclusive license.
1.7. Edits to mention IANA registries not managed by ICANN, and non-IANA registries managed by the ICANN IANA department.
Text has not yet been edited.
Andrew said that the ENUM registry is operated by RIPE NCC, does not call itself an IANA registry, but is discussed in the IANA Considerations section of RFC 4414.
Andrew said thet the Timezone database not an IANA registry, is not controlled by the IETF, but is operated by IANA according to RFC 6557 specified by the IETF.
The issue is that we don’t want to prevent people from continuing to operate ENUM and timezone database.
Greg said that ENUM not using the IANA brand, so it is probably OK without a licence, but we should devote a sentence to it.
Andrew said that ICANN/IANA has the ability to maintain IANA databases for SDOs other than the IETF. So far they don't, exactly, though some think the TZ database is such a case
Nurani suggested that the RIPE NCC legal adviser should be involved, since the ENUM registry is operated by the RIPE NCC.
Andrew suggested that the document might be ready for involvement from legal counsel in all three opertional communities. Greg agreed that legal counsel should comment on the term sheet, after a last look by this group
Greg talked about balance between the Trust and the communities, and thinks the document strikes a good balance, but it needs more discussion
2. Update on discussion in operational communities.
The draft “Principle Terms” draft document is in Google Docs at this URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oR3nmHl1fK7BEWOBK65KyvnmhTJZX70j9q4Ne9i4ad4/edit?usp=sharing.
It has been shared in numbers communitl “ianaxfer” mailing list, with not much feedback.
It has been shared in a CWG call, with no feedback yet.
It has been discussed in the IETF, and there was feedback on the exclusive license, as discussed under agenda item 1.6.
It will be discussed in a CRISP call later on 29 Feb 2016.
ACTION: All to encourage further discussion in community mailing lists.
3. Implications of the new name of PTI.
Andrew asked whether we needed to be explicit that, whatever name is used for PTI, all services remain at iana.org. He mentioned that a new name for “PTI” is expected to be announced at ICANN 55 in Marrakesh, in March 2016.
Greg wondered whether the name will include “IANA” or “Internet Assigned Numbers Authority”. Alan said that it would be bad if the name included IANA, but they lost the licence later. Greg said that the licence could be written to allow for this, and force them to change their name if they lose the licence.
Andrew said that he was planning to send a message to ICANN about this issue. He did not have time to edit the message collaboratively before sending, btu would copy the members of this group.
4. Name of IIGC.
Alan asked whether we could find a better name than IANA IPR Governance Council (IIGC), because the name Governance Council sounds pompous. Greg suggested “Community Representative Group”.
5. Next steps.
All to inform their community of the document, and encourage discussion.
Next meeting will be after the CCWG meeting on Friday 8 May 2016. German will try to choose some time slots during ICANN week and post a poll.