[CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

[Steve Crocker]

Lise,

Thanks for forwarding these documents.  I read through them quickly and may have missed something, so apologies in advance if the point I’m making below is already under control.

It’s my understanding the decision has already been made and agreed to for the IANA IPR to be held by the IETF Trust.  I also understand that the relevant parties are working out those details and that ICANN will cooperate fully.

Much of the language in intellectual property agreements seems focused on copyright and trade mark concerns.  The use of the iana.org domain name is not discussed in the same depth, but that’s actually the most sensitive and important part of this exercise.  There is quite a lot of protection built into these agreements to guard against ICANN or PTI misbehaving in various ways — “going rogue” is the colloquial term — but there is no language, at least not on quick reading, that protects ICANN and the community we serve, if the IETF Trust trustees go rogue. What does “going rogue” mean in this context.  The nightmare scenario is the trustees exercise their right as owners of the iana.org domain name to abruptly change the operating parameters, particularly the name server (NS) records, so that operational use of the iana.org ceases to be available with no notice or recourse.

Fortunately, all of the principals involved understand this issue and have agreed to use a registrar that has the means to require multiple parties to concur on big changes.  So, with respect to implementing the transfer of the IPR to the IETF Trust and then establishing the appropriate operating rules, I think we’re in good shape.  However, this document does not seem to address this point, and hence I’m concerned that people with less understanding of the operational realities may take issue with how the terms of this agreement are actually implemented.

Steve




On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Lise Fuhr <Fuhr at etno.eu> wrote:

> Dear CWG,
>  
> The Client Committee has received the attached documents from Sidley as a preliminary advice in relation to the IANA IPR. We are going to briefly discuss the document on the CWG meeting today and Sidley will be attending the call. This document has been sent to the two other communities,  numbering and protocol, for their information today. We still need to discuss the feedback from their advisors.
>  
> Best regards,
> Jonathan and Lise
> <Redline Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements (Sidley 0531 vs Original).pdf><Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, Sidley Comments May 31.DOCX><IPR Memo.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20160602/8a2440be/attachment.html>