[Iana-ipr] Decisions to be made soon

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 14:36:07 CEST 2016

One point in advance of our meeting.

I think there needs to be only one community agreement.  The intent of this
agreement is to have the communities, both individually and together,
exercise oversight over the IETF Trust as the steward of the IANA IPR.
Among other things, the community agreement establishes the IANA Community
Coordination Group (CCG); this needs to be established by a single document.


On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>

> Thanks Alan,
> A quick point on the "lack of opposition".  In my case, I simply don't yet
> feel qualified to offer an opinion, so am currently neither for or against
> three agreements.
> Again, with respect to the IETF Trust being suitable, I am simply not
> qualified to comment on the suitability. That seems to me to be the reason
> for seeking expert / legal input.
> It has taken too long to get that input and now we need to work
> effectively to deal with that. Dealing with it may well have the outcome
> that the Trust is suitable, or at least suitable enough.
> Hopefully, tabulating and systematically working through that input will
> be the most efficient way to deal with it.
> Jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net]
> Sent: 22 June 2016 07:13
> To: iana-ipr at nro.net
> Subject: [Iana-ipr] Decisions to be made soon
> Arising from yesterday’s meeting, I would like the following decisions to
> be made soon:
> 1. Confirm that the IETF Trust is a suitable party to hold the IPR,
> without any changes to the Trust’s founding documents.
> I thought that we agreed in our call of 20 January 2016 that “functional
> neutrality” was sufficient, and there was no need for “structural
> neutrality”.  These terms come from a document that was prepared by the
> CWG’s DT-IPR team <
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151214/fe2b4621/DT-IPRDraftofDecember142015-0001.pdf>.
> I understood that CWG had also confirmed that decision in a meeting on 21
> January 2016 <
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2016-January/004629.html>.
> I am uncomfortable with Sidley’s apparent attempt to re-open that
> discussion in their “General comment to CWG” in their comments on the
> Proposed principal terms of IANA IPR <
> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/attachments/20160602/5752c65d/RedlineProposedPrincipalTermsofIANAIntellectualPropertyAgreementsSidley0531vsOriginal-0001.pdf>,
> and I would like us to confirm that there is no need for changes to the way
> the IETF Trust is constituted.
> 2. How many IPR license agreements?
> The original document said one license agreement in favour of ICANN, and
> had some complexities to deal with a possible future in which some but not
> all operational communities move to a different IANA services provider.
> The RIR legal team suggested three separate agreements for three parts of
> the IANA functions, which should make future changes easier.
> My preference is for three agreements, and I did not hear opposition to
> that idea, but I am not sure whether a decision was made.
> 3. Should IPR licenses automatically terminate when IANA service providers
> are changed?
> Assuming there are three license agreements, the RIR legal team has
> suggested that a license should immediately terminate when an operational
> community changes their IANA services provider, without the need for
> escalation or dispute resolution, because due process would already have
> been followed prior to changing IANA services provider.
> I think that this would make sense, but we did not discuss it on the call.
> 4. How many community agreements?
> The document says one or more: "An agreement or agreements between the
> IETF Trust and the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the
> “Operational Communities”) regarding the relationship between the Trust and
> each Operational Community and the relationship among the Operational
> Communities, including the Trust’s commitments, duties and obligations to
> each Community”.
> I think that three agreements would make sense.
> 5. Who takes the lead in drafting?
> I suggest that each community could take the lead in drafting a community
> agreement between their community and the IETF Trust, and the IETF Trust
> could take the lead in drafting all other agreements.  Regardless of who
> takes the lead in drafting, each agreement will need to be approved by all
> affected parties.
> Alan Barrett
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/attachments/20160628/42b2a148/attachment.html>

More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list