Re: [CCG] [Trustees] Proposed Changes to License Agreements

[Ray Pelletier <[e-mail]>]

John

The Trustees are meeting next week and I expect we’ll have answers
for you then.

Ray


> On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:48 AM, John Curran <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 9 Mar 2017, at 5:08 PM, Russ Housley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Can we get an explicit response from someone speaking for the Numbers Community that they do not have any concerns?
> 
> Russ (& the IPR Community Coordination Group) - 
>  
>    The number community is supportive of the change in general, but our legal
>    review has raised two questions (summarized below - see attached full text 
>    for context): 
> 
>        1. Do we mean “no response” or “no objection” from the current contacts?
>            It is possible that any response (even simply clarification) would inhibit 
>            update, and that may not be the desired outcome.  We would appreciate
>            confirmation and are fine with either outcome. 
> 
>        2. Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between the licensor 
>            and the registrar is only valid as long as the License agreement is in force?
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> Chair, Number Resource Organization 
> 
> ===
> 
>> The proposed text introduces obligations to the “Registrar", while the
>> registrar is not a party in the agreement and hasn’t been defined ( also
>> it is a capitalised terms that hasn’t been defined in the agreement).
>> The obligations of the registrar should be defined in the agreement
>> between the Licensor and the registrar. Instead the text should say “The
>> Licensor must ensure that the registrar will provide notice of receipt
>> etc”).
>> 
>> Also the proposed change introduce some procedure for the approval of
>> changes to the technical contact, registrar transfers and deletion of
>> the domain name. The current document requires the approval of both
>> technical contact (ICANN according to Article 3.2 of the License
>> agreement) and administrative contact (which we assume is IETF trust).
>> 
>> Both the current and the proposed text give the registrant (which is the
>> IETF trust) the right to override the need for an approval by the
>> technical and the administrative contact 10 days after the request.
>> 
>> The current text is not very clear about this process and so the
>> proposed text intends to introduce some more clarity. In particular the
>> current version allows for a waiver 10 days after the registrant (IETF
>> trust) notifies both the technical and administrative contact of the
>> request for change. It is not specifically written in the current
>> version but we assume that the intention of this waiver is to allow the
>> registrant to go ahead with the changes in case there is no objections
>> by the contacts but they neglected to respond.
>> 
>> If this assumption is accurate, then in principle the new text clarifies
>> this process, but instead of “no objection”, it says “no response”,
>> which in our opinion may restrict the power of the registrant to
>> override the approval if ICANN response in any way (without objecting)
>> within 10 days.
>> 
>> If this assumption is accurate, we would suggest to replace “no
>> response” with “no objection”.
>> 
>> Finally we need to ensure that the agreement between the Licensor and
>> the registrar is only valid as long as the License agreement is in force.
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> 
> ===
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Trustees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees