I attach a PDF version of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, as a snapshot of the state when we agreed to ask legal counsel in the three communities to review the document.
Alan Barrett
Dear Alan,
If I correctly remember a TLD cannot be protected. What about ".iana" being authorized by ICANN to a CLASS IN Registry.
This is not because, taking advantage of the delay offered by the Trumpnet campaign, we currently are engaged into a global discussion about an altstack that we dropped interest in our CLASS "FL" experiment. Let consider it currently as a tought-experiment (this is a free&free field where XLIBRE can more easily contribute). What about "iana.lib" in CLASS "FL" ?
jfc
At 10:55 09/03/2016, Alan Barrett wrote:
I attach a PDF version of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, as a snapshot of the state when we agreed to ask legal counsel in the three communities to review the document.
Alan Barrett
Dear All,
I hope you all had a safe travel home. I have discussed the process with Jonathan regarding the document. We propose to have a sequential review by our legal counsellors instead of the parallel reviews to avoid any overlapping work. If any of you have comments already from your advisors it would be good to share with the group so we can pass on the comments to our advisors. If you haven't sent them yet, we are happy to be the first to send to our advisors. Please get back to Jonathan and me if you have any concerns or questions regarding this procedure.
Best, Lise
-----Original Message----- From: iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net [mailto:iana-ipr-bounces@nro.net] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett Sent: 09 March 2016 10:56 To: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: [Iana-ipr] PDF document for review
I attach a PDF version of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, as a snapshot of the state when we agreed to ask legal counsel in the three communities to review the document.
Alan Barrett
On 16 Mar 2016, at 15:08, Lise Fuhr Fuhr@etno.eu wrote:
Dear All,
I hope you all had a safe travel home. I have discussed the process with Jonathan regarding the document. We propose to have a sequential review by our legal counsellors instead of the parallel reviews to avoid any overlapping work. If any of you have comments already from your advisors it would be good to share with the group so we can pass on the comments to our advisors. If you haven't sent them yet, we are happy to be the first to send to our advisors. Please get back to Jonathan and me if you have any concerns or questions regarding this procedure.
Last week, I asked the RIR legal team to begin a review. I don’t see what we gain by performing three reviews in series instead of in parallel.
Alan Barrett
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:08:17PM +0000, Lise Fuhr wrote:
I hope you all had a safe travel home. I have discussed the process with Jonathan regarding the document. We propose to have a sequential review by our legal counsellors instead of the parallel reviews to avoid any overlapping work. If any of you have comments already from your advisors it would be good to share with the group so we can pass on the comments to our advisors. If you haven't sent them yet, we are happy to be the first to send to our advisors. Please get back to Jonathan and me if you have any concerns or questions regarding this procedure.
Like Alan (downthread), I already requested the IETF counsel have a look at this. So at least two of us are already doing this in parallel :) But also, I think trying to do this serially will result in a much longer timeline, and I don't know that we have 6 additional weeks to spare. I'd like to get this out to the community real soon.
Best regards,
A
Alan / Andrew,
Lise & I were seeking to be efficient rather that slow things down. The concern is that three parallel reviews produce three outcomes which may not gel together or even contradict one another.
Therefore, it seemed logical to get one (or two as it turns out) reviews completed prior so that the following one/s build on that rather than potentially conflict with it.
Trust that makes sense?
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com] Sent: 17 March 2016 20:38 To: Lise Fuhr Fuhr@etno.eu Cc: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] PDF document for review
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:08:17PM +0000, Lise Fuhr wrote:
I hope you all had a safe travel home. I have discussed the process with
Jonathan regarding the document. We propose to have a sequential review by our legal counsellors instead of the parallel reviews to avoid any overlapping work. If any of you have comments already from your advisors it would be good to share with the group so we can pass on the comments to our advisors. If you haven't sent them yet, we are happy to be the first to send to our advisors. Please get back to Jonathan and me if you have any concerns or questions regarding this procedure.
Like Alan (downthread), I already requested the IETF counsel have a look at this. So at least two of us are already doing this in parallel :) But also, I think trying to do this serially will result in a much longer timeline, and I don't know that we have 6 additional weeks to spare. I'd like to get this out to the community real soon.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
It makes sense to me, yes, but I think we face the conflict potential regardless. If our counsel thinks there's a problem and yours doesn't, we'll need to reconcile that anyway, right?
A
On 18 Mar 2016, at 15:02, Jonathan Robinson jrobinson@afilias.info wrote:
Alan / Andrew,
Lise & I were seeking to be efficient rather that slow things down. The concern is that three parallel reviews produce three outcomes which may not gel together or even contradict one another.
Therefore, it seemed logical to get one (or two as it turns out) reviews completed prior so that the following one/s build on that rather than potentially conflict with it.
Trust that makes sense?
No, sorry, I can’t think of a scenario where reviews in series will result in less overall effort than reviews in parallel. It’s too late anyway; the reviews are already proceeding in parallel.
Alan
Thanks Andrew, Thanks Alan,
Do you have an ETA for the reviewed documents in order for us to make the best decision on the way forward here?
Jonathan & Lise
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net] Sent: 18 March 2016 18:18 To: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] PDF document for review
On 18 Mar 2016, at 15:02, Jonathan Robinson jrobinson@afilias.info wrote:
Alan / Andrew,
Lise & I were seeking to be efficient rather that slow things down. The concern is that three parallel reviews produce three outcomes which may not gel together or even contradict one another.
Therefore, it seemed logical to get one (or two as it turns out) reviews completed prior so that the following one/s build on that rather than potentially conflict with it.
Trust that makes sense?
No, sorry, I can’t think of a scenario where reviews in series will result in less overall effort than reviews in parallel. It’s too late anyway; the reviews are already proceeding in parallel.
Alan _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Hi,
We said 3 weeks in our meeting, so that was the date I gave the IETF counsel.
participants (5)
-
Alan Barrett -
Andrew Sullivan -
JFC Morfin -
Jonathan Robinson -
Lise Fuhr