[Iana-ipr] Notes from 8 Feb 2016

German Valdez german at nro.net
Tue Feb 9 09:08:17 CET 2016


Hi

The list is now moderated so no members  can post to the list. 

Currently Kurt Rossler and Trang Nguyen from ICANN staff are subscribed with the moderation mode activated. 

regards

German


> On 8 Feb 2016, at 6:53 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> Notes from the IANA-IPR call of 8 february 2016
> 
> Present:
> 
> - Alan Barrett (NRO)
> - Pul Wilson (NRO)
> - Izumi Okutani (CRISP)
> - Greg Shatan (CWG)
> - Lise Fuhr (CWG)
> - Jari Arkko (IETF)
> - Andrew Sulliovan (IAB)
> - German Valdez (Secretariat)
> 
> Apologies:
> 
> - Nurani Mimpuno (CRISP)
> - Jonathan Robinson (CWG)
> 
> 1. Confirmation of quorum requirements.
> 
> There was agreement that the quorum will be:
> 
> * Greg Shatan (CWG)
> * One or both of Lise Fuhr or Jonathan Robinson (CWG)
> * One or both of Alan Barrett or Paul Wilson (NRO)
> * One or both of Izumi Okutani or Nurani Nimpuno (CRISP)
> * One or both of Andrew Sullivan (IAB) or Jari Arkko (IETF)
> 
> 2. Mailing list archive
> 
> We confirmed that the iana-ipr at nro.net mailing list is archived at <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/> and the archives are open to the public.
> 
> 3. Mailing list subscription for observers
> 
> There was discussion on allowing observers to subscribe to the mailing list.  Observers are already able to read the archives, but some might find it more convenient to subscribe to the list.  There was general agreement that the general public could be allowed read-only subscription to the iana-ipr mailing list, but posting would be restricted.
> 
> ACTION: German Valdez to investigate the technical feasibility of allowing open read-only subscription, and to implement it if it is easy.
> 
> 4. Access policy for draft Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements document on google docs
> 
> There was a discussion on allowing public read-only access to the draft Example Principal Terms of Intellectual Property Agreements which this group has been editing in google Docs.
> 
> There was general agreement that public read-only access was desirable.
> 
> ACTION: Greg Shatan to adjust the permissions and/or create new links as appropriate to allow this group to edit the document while allowing the public to read the document.
> 
> 5. Confirm non-controversial edits.
> 
> Alan Barrett suggested that edits made on or before 31 January 2016, which have not received comments, should be marked as “accepted”.  It was clarified that the “acceptance” of edits would not be binding on any participants, but was chiefly intended to allow discussion to focus on important points without distraction from redline markup relating to points that have general agreement.  The edit history would be available in Google Docs, and each community would still need to review any future version fo the document.
> 
> Lise Fuhr indicated that she and Jonathan Robinson needed more time to review, before any edits were “accepted”.
> 
> There was a discussion about revision control, and general agreement that the facilities provided by Google Docs were probably sufficient.  However, additional snapshots sent to the mailing list would also be useful.
> 
> ACTION: Greg Shatan to send snapshots of the document to the mailing list when he thinks it appropriate.
> 
> ACTION: All to mark any edits or points that need further discussion, by Friday 12 February 2016.
> 
> ACTION: Lise Fuhr to liaise with Jonathan Robinson to review the document as soon as possible.
> 
> ACTION: Greg Shatan to “accept” non-controversial edits, after waiting until at least Friday 12 February 2016.
> 
> 6. Discussion of other edits.
> 
> The following three issues were discussed:
> 
> 6.1.  Licencing to ICANN or to PTI?
> 
> There was general agreement that licensing to ICANN would be appropriate, with ICANN sub-licensing to PTI.
> 
> 6.2.  Exclusive or non-exclusive licence?
> 
> Greg Shatan explained that an exclusive licence was appropriate, because ICANN or PTI would be the only provider of IANA services.  He clarified that the licence would not be permanent or irrevocable, so it could be changed in the future.
> 
> Further discussion is needed on this issue.
> 
> 6.3.  Planning for future changes in IANA operators
> 
> Alan Barrett highlighted the need to plan for a potential future transition to one or more different IANA operators.
> 
> 7. Next steps
> 
> We will continue to work on the document in Google Docs.
> 
> The next meeting will be next week, if possible.
> 
> ACTION: German Valdez to set up a Doodle poll for a possible time during the week of 8 to 12 February 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Barrett
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr




More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list