Re: [CCG] Proposed Changes to License Agreements

CW Mail <> Mon, 27 March 2017 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9FA129501 for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 04:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XcwU4Ul6uQXB for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 04:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F97129672 for <>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 04:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by paganini32 with id 0zyp1v00l53jmSb01zyqEQ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:58:55 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1842DD3-6672-48D3-97F1-89C00132FA54"
From: CW Mail <>
X-Priority: 1
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:58:46 +0200
Cc:, Trustees <>, GREG SHATAN <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <!&!> <>
To: Tobias Gondrom <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCG] Proposed Changes to License Agreements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:59:03 -0000

Good afternoon:

On this occasion I can confirm my agreement to the amendments to and the current text of Exhibit E, as proposed below.

More generally, however, and for future reference, I would like CCG to be associated more thoroughly with any issues or texts that arise in this context.
For instance, I have no record of CCG having been associated with the development of the final IANA IPR Licence Agreement, whereas I had pointed out some time ago that in the international context it would not be appropriate to grant a monopoly to the AAA Rules in the event of unresolved disputes. But this appears to have been ignored.


Christopher Wilkinson

PS:	 I was disappointed that there was no opportunity to meet during ICANN58 in Copenhagen.

On 09 Mar 2017, at 19:54, CW Mail <> wrote:
> Dear Tobias Gordon:
> Thankyou. I shall also review the document and respond in good time for your schedule.
> I would like to clarify how exactly the envisaged Community Reviews would be conducted.
> May I suggest that those of us who are in Copenhagen next week might  meet briefly and informally to establish personal contact.
> Best regards
> Christopher Wilkinson
> On 01 Mar 2017, at 16:39, Tobias Gondrom <> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> We are in the process of transferring the IANA domains to the Trust
>> from ICANN using CSC as the registrar.
>> The agreement with CSC requires the incorporation of the License
>> Agreements’ Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements.  Exhibit E
>> is the same in each of the three license agreements between the
>> Trust and ICANN.
>> The implementation of the requirements needed additional details
>> than in the current Exhibit E. These details have been worked out
>> with ICANN and approved by the IETF Trust for review and acceptance
>> by the CCG.
>> Specifically, under the circumstance where the Administrative and
>> Technical Contacts must approve the change to the Technical Contact
>> the Registrar must provide notice of a receipt of a request to each to
>> change the Technical Contact.
>> Additionally, under the circumstance where the Registrant can
>> override the need for the other parties to approve a change to the
>> Technical Contact, the Registrant must provide documentation that
>> notice of the change was provided to both the Administrative and
>> Technical Contacts and that no response was received after a period
>> of no less than ten business days.
>> These conditions are also incorporated under the circumstances where
>> the domain is set to prohibit registrar transfers and to prohibit
>> deletions.
>> A markup of the attached License Agreement Exhibit E reflects those
>> proposed details.
>> CSC has stated that it can implement the proposed changes.
>> Section 3.2 e (ii) of the Community Agreement provides that each
>> Operational Community accepts the “Initial License Agreement”, which
>> was done.
>> The Trust, together with the current Operator, propose changes to the
>> License Agreement and requests that the Operational Communities
>> accept these changes.
>> Following acceptance of these proposed changes it is believed the
>> next steps to be:
>>   a.  Community Review
>>   b.  Trust and ICANN execute amendments to the three License Agreements
>>   c.  Incorporate the changes in CSC Agreement Schedule A
>>             (Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License Agreements)
>>   d.  Trust puts Schedule A of the CSC Agreement out for Community Review 
>>   e.  Community Review
>>   f.  Trust executes CSC Agreement
>>   g.  CSC Test of conformance to the requirements 
>>   h.  All IANA domains transferred upon successful test
>> Your feedback by 20 March 2017 on the proposed amendments to the
>> License Agreements and the next steps are appreciated.
>> Best regards,
>> Tobias Gondrom
>> Chair
>> IETF Trust
>> <Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements Markup -00.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> CCG mailing list