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
- Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: P… Russ Housley
- Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: P… Kaveh Ranjbar
- Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: P… John Curran
- Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: P… John Curran
- [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Propo… Kaveh Ranjbar