Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Seun said:

"I believe my point was not implying/expecting that this working group
draft the contract actual text. However, I think this WG is tasked with
indicating the expected features of the contract. The current IETF response
to ICG does/did not include any section implying that it expect that the
IPR on IANA be transferred from the current operator in this process."

[BA] The IANAPLAN WG was never conceived of as a substitute for legal
counsel, nor was any legal advice solicited from it.  For example, the
IANAPLAN WG was not asked to opine on the legal enforceability of the
IETF-ICANN MOU; there was only a discussion of the potential cost and time
of attempting to re-negotiate it (and I believe consensus not to go there).

RFC 6220 indicates clearly that the IAOC is responsible for negotiation of
the contract with the IANA Protocol Parameter operator.  That includes
contracting with legal counsel and working with counsel to understand the
legal issues and potential solutions.  The IANAPLAN WG, in providing a set
of minimum requirements as well as preferences for that activity, is
essentially providing a "problem statement" to the IAOC.   This is very
valuable to prevent scope (and cost) creep within the legal engagement.
Those who have regularly worked with lawyers know that such a "problem
statement" can be worth its weight in gold.

However, if the IAOC working with counsel finds additional concerns that
need to be addressed, or if other issues arise in the context of ICG
discussion, they are free to address them.



On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 19 Jan 2015 18:15, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Seun said:
> >
> > "On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
> mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
> other communities."
> >
> > [BA] I don't believe that this is accurate.  Under RFC 6220, the IAOC
> owns legal and contractual issues with the IANA Protocol Parameter
> contractor.  The chartering of the IANAPLAN WG did not change that.  The
> issues referred to have been under active discussion within IAOC and the
> IETF Trust all along (with legal counsel assisting).   The IANAPLAN WG has
> only been responsible for providing a sense of priorities for that legal
> work - a set of requirements, if you will.
> >
>
> ... yes and transfer of IPR was not recognised to be on this WG list until
> it got triggered by an external community. On another note, your message
> above seem to imply that this WG is not tasked with preparing a response to
> the ICG and also that the IAOC could introduce other elements that did not
> achieve consensus within this WG. I hope I am wrong about that?
>
> > It is important not to confuse the "requirements" drafted by IANAPLAN WG
> with the actual legal and contractual arrangements under development by the
> IAOC.
> >
>
> I believe my point was not implying/expecting that this working group
> draft the contract actual text. However, I think this WG is tasked with
> indicating the expected features of the contract. The current IETF response
> to ICG does/did not include any section implying that it expect that the
> IPR on IANA be transferred from the current operator in this process.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> sent from Google nexus 4
> >> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> >> On 19 Jan 2015 16:53, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I would note that both of the concerns listed are under consideration
> by the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities also include
> mention of both items.
> >> >
> >> Just to note that it's 1 of the communities(numbers) that has included
> this; not necessarily that I agree with that but again it does not serve as
> basis for me to fault the entire process.
> >>
> >> >
> >> So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work,
> >> >
> >> On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
> mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
> other communities.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the
> ICG received the following comment:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >>
> >> >> Ianaplan mailing list
> >> >> [e-mail]
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Ianaplan mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >> >
> >
> >
>