I should have noted more carefully: the "to get started" means that
these are not definitive and haven't been reviewed by anyone else.
This is based on what I know, and is subject to correction (especially
by counsel). IANAL, YMMV, &c.
A
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:19:34PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here are some answers to the questions, to get started.
>
> I.1.a. The IETF Trust is made up of Trustees, all of whom are also
> IAOC members (that's how you become a Trustee). There are several
> ways that IAOC members get appointed.
>
> The IETF Adminsitrative Director is a non-voting member the IAOC (as
> IAD). The IAD is the only person who is employed full time with
> direct responsibility to the IETF; the IAD is evaluated by the IAOC,
> though nomimally is an employee of ISOC.
>
> The IETF Chair is a member of the IAOC _ex officio_ IETF Chair.
>
> The IAB Chair is a member of the IAOC _ex officio_ IAB Chair.
>
> The President and CEO of ISOC is a member of the IAOC _ex officio_
> ISOC President.
>
> There is a member of the IAOC that is appointed by the Internet
> Engineering Steering Group (the collection of all of the Area
> Directors of the IETF).
>
> There is another member of the IAOC that is appointed by the IAB.
>
> There is a member of the IAOC that is appointed by the ISOC Board of
> Trustees.
>
> The other IAOC members (currently 2 more) are appointed by the IETF NomCom.
>
> The Trust exists to hold certain intellectual property related to the
> Internet. Originally it was created more or less specifically to hold
> the IPR for things that are of relevance to the IETF, so that's why we
> believed it was ok to hold this IPR too on behalf of the wider
> Internet community.
>
> I.1.b. The Trust is to maintain and defend the IPR of the IETF. The
> IETF appoints 6 of the IAOC members (and therefore 6 of the Trustees)
> either directly or indirectly.
>
> I.1.c. ISOC is the organizational home of the IETF (because the IETF
> is unincorporated, actions that require an IETF contractual
> relationship are handled by ISOC). Effectively, ISOC also works as a
> kind of bank account -- it provides the handling of most of our money,
> and currently provides approximately 1/3 of the IETF annual operating
> budget (the other 2/3 are related to meetings. ISOC handles that
> money, but in a pass-through manner). Apart from the ISOC members
> (and therefore Trustees) that ISOC appoints, and some services that
> ISOC provides to the Trust (like financial statements for expenses
> relating to the Trust), there is no formal relationship between ISOC
> and the Trust.
>
> I
>
> 1.d. I'm not sure I understand this question except as was answered
> in (c). The IAB provides advice to ISOC BoT, and since the IAB is a
> committee of the IETF I suppose that's another responsibility.
>
> 2. The community. The Trust reports on its activities regularly, and
> most of the Trust membership could be removed through appropriate
> recall efforts were that to be necessary.
>
> 3. See (1). This depends in part on the appointing body. Most serve
> in renewable terms of 2 years. The IAB chair is an annual
> appointment, so that appointment could normally change every year. In
> practice it has never happened that the IAB chair changed after only a
> year.
>
> 4. Yes. Every Trustee, when they join, is required to do this.
>
> 5. Yes. Legal issues are documented beneath https://iaoc.ietf.org/subpoenas.html.
>
> 6.a. Either once or twice a month, depending on the quantity of business.
>
> 6.b. Mostly by teleconference, but also in person at IETF meetings and
> at one annual retreat.
>
> 6.c. There is an agenda, but it is not generally circulated to date.
> Community members can and do raise issues with the Trust which then
> get treated at a future meeting.
>
> 6.d. No. The Trust generally deals with legal matters, and to
> preserve privilege the meetings are not open.
>
> 6.e. Minutes are published at http://trustee.ietf.org/minutes.html.
>
> II
>
> 1. The IETF has requested no compensation for this.
>
> 2.a. (i and ii) The IETF Trust pays this out of its normal operating
> expenses. Historically, the accounting was handled a little
> informally, with expenses not always carefully distinguished between
> IETF and Trust expenses. In anticipation of the new responsibility
> and the additional transparency likely to be desirable, the Trust has
> begun accounting its finances separately (this is recently
> instututed).
>
> 2.b. (i and ii) The IETF's budget is tiny. We're prepared to look
> after these expenses, but if the community decided that the Licensee
> should contribute some money to offset the expenses we're pretty
> unlikely to refuse it. We are not planning for it, however.
>
> 2.c. and d. (i and ii) I'd prefer to defer to Jorge on these.
>
> 3. My understanding -- but we should clarify this with counsel -- is
> that the Trust does in fact have the authority to act unilaterally, in
> keeping with its duties as the owner of the Marks or domains whenever
> it apprehends that it must act in the interests of the maintenance of
> the Mark or domain name in question. Our intention, however, in the
> Community Agreement was to undertake all possible provision for acting
> in keeping with and subject to the relevant community's (or
> communities') wishes, in so far as trademark and domain name law and
> jurisprudence permit that.
>
> 4. My understanding -- and again, this needs to be clarified with
> counsel -- is that a Mark holder _must_ retain that independent right,
> or it's not really the holder of the Mark.
>
> 5. I defer to Jorge on this.
>
> 6.a. I do not believe this is possible, because I think it would
> require modifications to the Trust Agreement that cannot be undertaken
> as a practical matter. If this is a requirement, then the IETF Trust
> can't receive the IPR, and we'll need to find another way to satisfy
> the requirements of the transition proposal. I confess I find it
> pretty hard to see how that is going to happen in time for the
> deadline.
>
> 6.b. I want to consult with Jorge first, but in principle I'm not
> opposed to this so long as it is possible to protect the rest of the
> Trust's activities and so long as this does not involve the original
> settlors. If it does, I must say, then I do not believe it is possible.
>
> 7. Good question. I note that if this happens, we have other
> problems (like for instance that the status of the body that produces
> all the protocols on the Internet is apparently "in trouble"), so it
> seems like a low-probability situation in the horizon of the
> transition. I wonder whether something in the community agreements
> involving post-transition negotiation over this issue would be enough
> to put this issue to rest before September, because this appears to
> create thorny questions about the supervision of the post-dissolution
> body that are quite similar to the same questions we'd need to answer
> to set up an independent trust now.
>
> One final note: I think it bears repeating that the Trust did not go
> looking for this job, but has offered to do it as a service to the
> community. I think it's important to ask how valuable the IPR we're
> defening is compared to the value of the transition itself.
>
> A
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:04:12PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Here are the questions/discussion items for the IETF Trust to be covered in
> > tomorrow's call, in Word and PDF form (somewhat confusingly, the PDF title
> > begins with "Microsoft Word"...).
> >
> > Based on this email string, I would suggest the following agenda:
> >
> > 1. Q & A / Discussion on the IETF Trust
> >
> > 2. Mechanics - Process & Timeline
> >
> > a. Status of review/revision of draft agreements
> >
> > b. Timing
> >
> > c. Next steps
> >
> > 3. AOB
> >
> > I look forward to the call.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I expect to have it out in 15 minutes.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 03:10:02PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > >> > I think you're missing the original reason that this meeting was
> > >> requested
> > >> > by CWG, which was to have a call between "IETF Trustees and Names reps"
> > >> to
> > >> > go over a number of questions/points of information that the Names reps
> > >> and
> > >> > counsel would like to clarify with representatives of the IETF Trustees.
> > >>
> > >> So,
> > >>
> > >> 0) Issues raised by CWG?
> > >>
> > >> The difficulty, of course, is that we don't actually _have_ that list,
> > >> so it'll be hard to produce answers. Any clue how much later today?
> > >> I had some tentative plans for end-of-workday that I could just insert
> > >> now so I could review those issues later, but if "later" is "20:00
> > >> EDT" it'll probably be too late -- my body is still convinced I'm in
> > >> Germany.
> > >>
> > >> A
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Andrew Sullivan
> > >> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Iana-ipr mailing list
> > >> Iana-ipr@nro.net
> > >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Iana-ipr mailing list
> > Iana-ipr@nro.net
> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr@nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr