Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements
John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <jcurran@arin.net>
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 F1D491294AB; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5jZ7tBT8ZZoD; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:110:201::52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD230129552; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 3904A1DE3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (ashedge02.corp.arin.net [199.43.0.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15B213B; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) by ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (199.43.0.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:48 -0400
Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.62) by CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:29 -0400
Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6]) by CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: "ccg@ietf.org" <ccg@ietf.org>, IETF Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements
Thread-Index: AQHSqjB6o97oIZThYEKt8GensKjk86G/SHiAgA9jrQA=
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:29 +0000
Message-ID: <671FC8D8-6792-41E6-9CB7-2C17D6E3DB16@arin.net>
References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> <DB1F62D6-81B2-43AD-BBE3-ECB9AA9A4BB6@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB1F62D6-81B2-43AD-BBE3-ECB9AA9A4BB6@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [199.43.0.124]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2CD9FB83255AC7419645124AAA176DFA@corp.arin.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccg/hKB9jLDGgGzD4H80ivs4nrSvluA>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:34 -0000
Russ - I hope not; review of the changes was delayed but is now underway on an expedited basis. /John > On 10 Apr 2017, at 3:01 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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