[Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 01:07:42 CEST 2016


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 at 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 at 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 at afrinic.net
>> > <mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >     > On 27 Jul 2016, at 04:24, Hofheimer, Joshua T. <
>> jhofheimer at sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer at 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 at nro.net <mailto: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
>> >
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/attachments/20160728/2c40a061/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list