[ALAC-LT] URGENT ACTION: Decision regarding IANA Transition

sandra hoferichter info at hoferichter.eu
Fri Sep 30 06:39:54 UTC 2016

Support from my side.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
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
Wichtigkeit: Hoch

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).
>In summary:
>- 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.
>>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
>>Dear Chairs,
>>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 mailing list