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

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Jul 25 23:19:34 CEST 2016


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 at 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 at 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 at anvilwalrusden.com
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Iana-ipr mailing list
> >> Iana-ipr at nro.net
> >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
> >>
> >
> >



> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com



More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list