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

Fri Jul 29 03:14:53 UTC 2016

Hello,

Do find inline:

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 28 Jul 2016 11:36 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Replies inline.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> 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......<snip>....
The CCG's approval role is not complex and is required to be reasonable
(ie, not at the CCG's sole discretion).
>
SO: Well you still made my point about CCG. Okay let's just say the CCG in
this case is synonymous with the stewardship role of NTIA to ICANN. Infact
that may not even be entire accurate because NTIA only concerns itself with
critical related changes to RZ and NOT everything IANA department does as
is proposed for the CCG.

>
> 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.
>>
SO: What part of the CWG principle/proposal or part of the OCs principle
terms document requires approval of the community for *every* IANA related
action of the Trust?

>> 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.
>

SO: Well there was no "approval of everything" requirement attached to the
first draft. So that is probably why I was not concerned with the
communications of the Co-Chairs then.

> 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.
>
SO: You misinterpreted me here, I never said they shouldn't but I said
volunteer role in this should be advisory and not managerial in nature.

>
  In an important sense, the IETF are all volunteers, and I doubt you
object to their oversight of the IETF Trust.
>>
SO: I really don't have significant understanding of the extent of *formal*
oversight that the IETF volunteers/community has over the Trust. I
understand that the Trust serves for the benefit of the IETF as a whole so
is quite independent of IETF individual community members but the community
informally follows and may provide their views/suggestions as may be
requested or otherwise. Only the trustees of the IETF Trust are the ones
that have legal control over the Trust activities. The CCG in its current
form seem to be effectively replacing the trustees, which is contrary to
the terms of the IETF Trust[1]

>> 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.
>

SO: May I have a reference to where "what was envisioned" is documented and
agreed to by the CWG(and ofcourse by the other 2 OCs)?

>
"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.
>>
SO: I am basically referring to whoever are the signatories of the
agreement. However if the CCG members would sign legal documents that makes
them legally accountable for their actions and if the signatories of the
community agreement are fine with that, then I will have no further issue.

>> 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.
>
SO: Well a robust agreement has different interpretation for various
people. I have stated what the supposed robustness of the current write-up
seem to me.

>
I do hope that the differences in how the agreement works will be addressed
amicably, and I have every confidence they will be.
>

SO: I am as well, although I am somewhat concerned about how we are
utilising legal working hours for all these. I am also concerned that the
items we agreed to not include in the principles document seem to have made
it back to the agreement. Maybe after the transition, we can further look
at this kind of robustness being proposed but for now and in the interest
of transition, I will say a lightweight process is desirable and such
process should maintain the ability for each OC to transfer their stuff
from IETF Trust whenever required.

Regards
1. https://trustee.ietf.org/trust-agreement.html

>> 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
>>>
>>> (213) 896-6061 (LA direct)
>>>
>>> (650) 565-7561 (Palo Alto direct)
>>>
>>> (323) 708-2405 (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/20160729/35f95909/attachment.html>