[Iana-ipr] Proposed agenda (was Re: Call next week for IANA IPR)

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Jul 25 21:10:02 CEST 2016


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.
This should be the first item on the agenda.  We've been working with
counsel to prepare that list of questions, and it should be ready to share
very shortly today.  There should still be room for the rest of the items
you mention, though I have a hard stop after an hour.

On agenda item 2 in your email, we have also prepared revised versions of
the Community Agreement and License Agreement that are almost ready to be
circulated.  However, there are a few open items in our draft that relate
to the questions/information mentioned above, and we wanted to have that
discussion first, and then modify the drafts based on what we've learned
from the call.  I would expect us to be able to turn the draft back to the
IETF Trust and the other communities within 24-48 hours after tomorrow's
call.  (Note that I am promising other people's work to some extent, but I
still think my expectations are realistic.)

On agenda item 1 in your email, I think the issues are probably best
identified in our drafts (rather than cobbling together an issues list),
though I think several of them should come up in the discussion mentioned
in my first paragraph (and some may well be resolved by that discussion).

Best regards,


On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

> Hi,
> Here's what I think the agenda is for tomorrow:
> 1) Draft contract discussions:
>     a.  Are there issues?  (What are they?)
>     b.  For any issues identified, who needs to go hammer on them?
>     (I'm proposing we not try to do that on the call, or we'll run out
>     of time.)
> 2) Status of the evaluation of draft agreements in communities.
> 3) Date pressure: we need to ship a final set for community comment by
> NN August, where NN<12 (Ray Pelletier previously and I think correctly
> suggested 12 at the latest).  We have to have agreements in place by
> 30 Sept, so closing any public comment by 15 Sept seems necessary so
> that we have time to hammer out a compromise if it's needed.
> Otherwise, the transition fails.  We're on the critical path.
> 4) next steps.
> Any other items?
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/attachments/20160725/01177b95/attachment.html>

More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list