[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IANA IPR License & Community Agreement Template

Thu Jul 28 22:36:33 UTC 2016

Replies inline.

Greg

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> First apologies again for missing the meeting today as I expect what I am
> about to say must have been discussed at length. I just had a brief look on
> the community agreement and I was like wow! I cannot help but wonder
> whether we are still talking about IANA IPR or the actual ownership of the
> IANA functions.
>
> My first general impression about this is that i think this is too
> complicated and too unnecessarily detailed and cumbersome.
>
Which parts have too much detail?  Detail is helpful in avoiding
misinterpretation.  Much of the detail (and cumbersomeness) is around
escalation procedures, which are frankly designed to protect the interests
of the Trust in most instances. 

> There are quite a number of segments in the agreement that makes it clear
> that the CCG is in control while the trust is just an implementation
> medium;
>
I really don't think this is an accurate characterization of the
agreements.  The Trust initiates virtually all activities.  The exceptions
are quite limited (either around the transfer to a new IANA operator or in
the particular case where one or more communities would like a trademark
registered in a different jurisdiction (or potentially, a domain name
registered in a different TLD).  The CCG's approval role is not complex and
is required to be reasonable (ie, not at the CCG's sole discretion).

 I liken the trust role to that of the sole member. One of such sections is
quoted below:

> "Accordingly, the IETF Trust agrees, as set forth below, to seek the
> advice and *consent* of the CCG with respect to *all* matters concerning
> the IANA Intellectual Property,..."
>
> Will I have no problem with notification to the operational communities,
> the above implies requirement for approval of CCG for everything the IETF
> does relating to IANA IPR and domain.
>
Here I would note that these agreements are still a work in progress. If
something is imperfect, that is something we'll work out.  The first draft
tilted strongly in the other direction -- there were no consents or
approvals whatsoever, which did not reflect what was in the Principal Terms
document.

> This IMO is an overkill and is not acceptable, not just because i feel
> it's technical wrong to control a Trust in such manner but because it's
> improper to put such power in the hands of volunteer community (Infact it's
> in the hand of 1 person from each community since the agreement suggests
> that the trust should not question communication from respective Co-Chairs)
>
That particular feature (regarding communications from the co-Chairs) was
in the first draft; (we did change this to require the Chair(s) to
represent that they were speaking on behalf of their community).  In any
event, I think it is exceptionally unlikely that the one or more Chairs
will go rogue; they would be criticized (and probably removed) by their
community.  At the same time, there need to be relatively streamlined
communications, so the right balance needs to be achieved.

I don't see the objection to "volunteer communities" being involved -- that
is the basis of the multistakeholder process.  Even many who are here in
their professional capacity are to a greater or lesser extent volunteers.
In an important sense, the IETF are all volunteers, and I doubt you object
to their oversight of the IETF Trust.

> I thought the CCG was going to act in a review mode; while providing
> advice to their respective communities(or directly to the trust) whenever
> issues are identified but this is way beyond the scope. I believe any
> official communication to the Trust that are critical MUST always come from
> executives of the respective communities and NOT from CCG. Afterall the
> executives will be the signatories to the agreement.
>
This is not what was envisioned and it's entirely consistent with the way
other representative groups in this space work. "Executives" (and I'm not
sure who that would even be in some communities or parts thereof) are free
to be part of the CCG.

> Overall i am quite uncomfortable with the community agreement and I hope
> that this issue would be addressed amicably.
>
I don't think addressing issues "amicably" is in any way at odds with
having a robust agreement.  I do hope that the differences in how the
agreement works will be addressed amicably, and I have every confidence
they will be.

As I have always said, the protocol is the source of all these and I don't
> see why we are overloading this particular part of the transition
> unnecessarily.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 28 Jul 2016 11:29 a.m., "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please see attached for the revised drafts of the IPR License and the
>> Community Agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Hofheimer, Joshua T. [mailto:jhofheimer at sidley.com]
>> *Sent:* 27 July 2016 01:03
>> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* [client com] IANA IPR License & Community Agreement Template
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg and all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached are the final CWG revised drafts of the IPR License and the
>> Community Agreement, clean and marked against the originals.  Per my prior
>> note Greg, are you going to post, or do you want Sidley to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>> *Joshua Hofheimer*
>>
>> *Sidley Austin LLP*
>>
>> *jhofheimer at sidley.com <jhofheimer at sidley.com>*
>>
>> *(213) 896-6061 <%28213%29%20896-6061> (LA direct)*
>>
>> *(650) 565-7561 <%28650%29%20565-7561> (Palo Alto direct)*
>>
>> *(323) 708-2405 <%28323%29%20708-2405> (cell)*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
>> privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160728/91da37d5/attachment.html>