Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6204128BB6 for <ccg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9hd0yZLWUWr for <ccg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F38127369 for <ccg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E235300455 for <ccg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id XdWRvi9xBiyg for <ccg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-2.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E56730041B; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400
Cc: IETF Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB1F62D6-81B2-43AD-BBE3-ECB9AA9A4BB6@vigilsec.com>
References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net>
To: ccg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccg/eOpwjOT2vvxHUi8TqWjUMUVmCqE>
Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements
X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group <ccg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccg>, <mailto:ccg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg>, <mailto:ccg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:01:50 -0000

I have not seen anyone raise concerns with the way that the IETF Trust resolve their earlier comments.  Is more time needed for further review?

Russ


> On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net>; wrote:
> 
> All;
> 
> On 1st March the Trust sent proposed changes to the License
> Agreements with ICANN to the CCG and requested feedback.
> 
> Below are the Trust responses to the questions that were raised.
> 
> We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG.
> 
> In addition, we believe these are the Next Steps necessary to 
> complete the transfer of the domains and we welcome your review 
> and comments on these as well.
> 
> Next Steps
> 
> a.  Trust sends response to CCG questions
> b.  CCG reviews and comments
> c.  Upon acceptance, Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review 
> [Exhibit E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements]
> d.  Community Review
> e.  With no substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute 
> 	amendments to the three License Agreements
> f.  Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A
>   [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License Agreements]
> g.  Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC Agreement for Community Review 
> h.  Community Review
> i.  With no substantive changes, Trust executes CSC Agreement
> j.  Test of CSC conformance to the requirements 
> k.  Assuming successful test, all IANA domains transferred to Trust
> 
> Again, we welcome your comments and suggestions.
> 
> Kaveh Ranjbar
> Chair, IETF Trust
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> Responses to Questions Raised by CCG:
> 
> Q1:  Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In
> items iii and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as
> above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. above".
> However, in item ii, the words "after the same period as above² have
> not been changed.
> 
> Is the different approach in item ii deliberate?
> 
> A1.  After review of ii in relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our
> opinion that the same conditions should apply and have been incorporated.
> 
> The specific change would be as follow:
> 
> ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. Removal of
> this setting requires the approval of both administrative and
> technical contacts, with override only possible by the registrant
> after the same period as above.
> 
> s/ after the same period as above./ after the same conditions as
> specified in item i. above.
> 
> The Licensor shall arrange sufficient funds to ensure renewal is
> successful. Notices of pending, successful, and failed renewals must
> go to both technical and administrative contacts.
> 
> See Exhibit E attached with the markup.
> 
> Q2.  Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements
> section i, 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.
> 
> A2.  We mean “No Response.”  Section i provides for two scenarios.
> 
> The first is the situation where the approval of both the technical
> contact and the administrative contact is needed to approve a change
> to the technical contact information, that is, there is “No
> Objection” to the change.
> 
> The second is the situation where “No Response” was received from
> the administrative and technical contacts (or “No Objection” from
> one and “No Response” from the other).  In this situation the
> registrant (the Trust) can override the need for the parties to
> approve and approve the change to the technical contact information.
> There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to both
> parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 business days have
> passed.
> 
> Q3.   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?
> 
> A3.  The contract with the Registrar will not terminate merely as a
> result of changing IANA service providers or the License Agreement
> 
> The Trust is entering into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the
> purpose of it holding the IANA domains.
> 
> Exhibit E of the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the
> CSC Agreement.
> 
> Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A are ICANN specific.
> 
> If ICANN is no longer the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License
> Agreements will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new
> provider(s).
> 
> If Exhibit E of the License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of
> the Trust contract with the Registrar will be changed.
> 
> Of course the License Agreements will be changed in accordance with
> the provisions of the Community Agreement.
> 
> Applicable Community Agreement provisions include:
> 
> Community Agreement Provisions
> 
> 3.2       Licenses to IANA Operators.
> 
> a.         The IETF Trust shall license the IANA Intellectual
> Property, including the use of associated domain names, to one or
> more third party operators selected as described below (“IANA
> Operators”) for use in connection with performing IANA Services
> under one or more written license agreements (“License Agreements”).
> 
> e.         Operational Community IANA Operator Request.
> 
> (i)  Upon the request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust
> will attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a
> prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational Community’s
> designated IANA Service and based to the greatest extent possible on
> the Initial License Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use
> immediately prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii)  The IETF
> Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that the
> License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed with the initial
> IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, attached hereto as Exhibit
> D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively (the “Initial License Agreements”) is
> acceptable to it.
> 
> 
> 
> <Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements Markup -01.pdf>_______________________________________________
> CCG mailing list
> CCG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg