[Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 10:50:58 CEST 2016
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.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
> > On 27 Jul 2016, at 04:24, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <jhofheimer at sidley.com>
> > 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
> Alan Barrett
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Iana-ipr