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

John Curran <> Thu, 20 April 2017 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D491294AB; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jZ7tBT8ZZoD; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:110:201::52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD230129552; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 323) id 3904A1DE3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15B213B; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:48 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:29 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6]) by ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400
From: John Curran <>
To: Russ Housley <>
CC: "" <>, IETF Trustees <>
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: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: 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: 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.


> On 10 Apr 2017, at 3:01 PM, Russ Housley <> 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 <> 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 mailing list