Again resending a message without cc's that got bounced for having too many.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com wrote:

Athina,

Thanks for your email. I agree with you, but I don't think that anything that we've suggested in the current draft would require the Trust to change its structure. It's difficult to consider this as a general matter. If there are particular aspects of the draft that seem to be in conflict with specific aspects of the structure, we should be able to work around that to find the closest functional equivalent consistent with the Trust's structure. But we will need to be more concrete in order to close these gaps.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Athina Fragkouli < athina.fragkouli@ripe.net> wrote:

...

Dear all,

The RIRs are currently reviewing CWG comments and intend to send our feedback to the list. In the meantime we would like to highlight that, given the very tight time frame, the IETF trust in its current structure is the only pragmatic solution.

...

Any other alternative that can not be implemented within this time frame would jeopardize the success of the IANA transition and cannot be considered.

With regards to CCG's role, we strongly support the view that it should have a role that would be in line with IETF Trust's current structure and accountability. We appreciate IETF Trust's inability to amend its structure within the given time frame and we urge all parties to focus their efforts on building upon the existing situation.

Finally we would like to thank all parties for their commitment to the success of the IANA transition.

Kind regards, Athina

On 28/07/16 10:50, Greg Shatan wrote:

...

Alan,

I have to disagree, for reasons stated at length in my response to Alissa. The Principal Terms clearly state that the CCG has a role that goes beyond mere advice, and I think some of that was lost in the first draft. I also think it's incorrect to characterize the approval rights that the CCG has (and which are expressly contemplated in the Principal Terms) with regard to actions that the Trust wishes to take as a "mechanism for controlling the Trust." As drafted, the Trust initiates all of the actions it will take in connection with the IANA IPR. As long as these actions are consistent with the views of the communities, the Trust's actions will not be constrained at all. In no case is the Trust being "controlled" (except arguably when it is directed to terminate an IANA operator being terminated by an operational community, and I think that is entirely understandable). I am somewhat surprised that you would characterize even that critical action as intended to be "informational." Clearly it has to be more than "informing," which carries with it no element of how one might choose to respond to that "information."

The numbers community made two key points regarding the IPR in the transition proposal: "IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community" and that these assets must be "used in a nondiscriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community." In addition to being consistent with the Principal Terms, I believe these drafts are well aligned with these two concepts.

Rather than going on at any more length, I'll refer to my prior email for more detailed thoughts.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett@afrinic.net mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net> wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2016, at 04:24, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <

jhofheimer@sidley.com mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> wrote:

...

>
> Thank you to all the participants on the IANA-IPR call earlier

today. Attached please find comments by the CWG to the IANA IPR License and the Community Agreement, clean and marked to show changes from the originals forwarded to CWG. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions and we look forward to our discussion next week.

...

I have read these documents, and I am concerned that they appear to
constrain the actions of the IETF Trust far beyond what was
contemplated in the draft principal terms document which we all
reviewed.

I believe that the CCG was intended to provide advie to the Trust,
and to provide a channel for informing the Trust when an operational
community changes their IANA operator, but not to be a mechanism for
controlling the Trust.

Alan Barrett


_______________________________________________
Iana-ipr mailing list
Iana-ipr@nro.net <mailto: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