[ALAC-LT] URGENT ACTION: Decision regarding IANA Transition
info at hoferichter.eu
Fri Sep 30 06:39:54 UTC 2016
Support from my side.
Von: alac-excom-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-excom-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. September 2016 20:10
Betreff: [ALAC-LT] URGENT ACTION: Decision regarding IANA Transition
Leon, Tijani, Holly and Sandra,
As per the message below, I ask your you
agreement that the ALT, on behalf of the ALAC,
support the IP agreements as presented.
For transparency, I would prefer if this is a unanimous decision of the ALT.
For the record, I support this proposal.
I ask Staff to monitor the replies and: a) let me
know when we have replies from all ALT Members;
b) reach out to ALT Members who have not responded by the end of today.
>To: alac <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
>The following has just been brought to my attention.
>As described in the message forwarded below, the
>ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the
>CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support
>the proposal regarding the handling of the
>IANA-related intellectual property and domain
>names. They will be transferred to the IETF
>Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing
>IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out
>through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG).
>- ICANN will act as the signatory to the
>agreements on behalf of the Names Community
>- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide
>direction to ICANN in this respect.
>- In the event that the CWG no longer exists,
>the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will
>collectively direct ICANN in this respect.
>- Initial Names Community CCG representatives
>shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who
>has overseen the entire IP process.
>There has been extensive discussion within the
>CWG on this and I believe that the resultant
>plan more than meets ICANN's needs.
>The US Congress has not blocked the transition,
>but a number of US States are attempting to do
>so through the courts. At this point we are
>presuming that the Stewardship will go through
>and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow.
>Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other
>explicit responsibilities and is not empowered
>to make substantive decisions on the part of the
>ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes
>consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the
>decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical.
>I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC
>agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I
>will come back to the ALAC for ratification.
>IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE
>ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY.
>>From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
>>Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to
>>the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship
>> Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right
>>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000
>>Please see below a note from the Jonathan
>>Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship.
>>Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs,
>>As part of the transition implementation work,
>>representatives from the names community, the
>>numbers community, the protocol parameters
>>community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have
>>drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the
>>transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF
>>Trust and to govern the relationships amongst
>>the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer.
>>These agreements are:
>>- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement
>>transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust.
>>- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for
>>the names, numbers, and protocol parameters
>>IANA services.): These agreements allows for
>>the IANA functions operator to use the IPR.
>>- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This
>>agreement explains the rights and obligations
>>of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR.
>>After a public comment period last month, the
>>agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed.
>>One of the decisions that the CWG had to make
>>as part of the work was to identify who would
>>be the signatory of the Community Agreement on
>>behalf of the Naming Community. The decision
>>made by the group, with input from CWG external
>>counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An
>>instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose.
>>The Instruction Letter says: "This letter
>>confirms the request of the Cross Community
>>Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship
>>Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
>>(CWG) for the benefit of those of its listed
>>chartering organizations the Country Code
>>Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the
>>Security and Stability Advisory Committee
>>(SSAC), the Generic Names Supporting
>>Organization (GNSO), the At Large Advisory
>>Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental
>>Advisory Committee (GAC) that have affirmed
>>or hereafter affirm in writing that they agree
>>to be included herein (each a Consenting
>>SO/AC and collectively, the Names Community)
>>that ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names
>>Community under the Community Agreement."
>>This makes reference to the COs affirming in
>>writing that they agree to be included in the
>>instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC.
>>As ICANN might formally reach out to us to
>>obtain confirmation that one or more COs have
>>agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby
>>kindly ask that you provide such a written
>>confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying
>>to this email, preferably on or before
>>September 30th, 2016, so that the signing of
>>the agreement may proceed as planned.
>>Thank you for your cooperation,
>>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.
More information about the ALAC-ExCom