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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Sep 30 14:07:54 UTC 2016

I will give my view which I have given in a 
number of fora (both public and private) and 
never really had anyone disagree with. Others may chime in.

This is a great example of multistakeholderism 
and how it can go awry when you are trying to 
reach compromise. We have invested a HUGE amount 
of time and effort in an issue that had little 
import. But it was easier to go along rather than fight a bad idea.

Of the three, the protocol community had the most 
at stake here. The iana.org domain name is even 
embedded in code and changing it has onerous 
implications. The numbers community really has 
little stake in this. Regional registries 
formally interact with IANA perhaps once a year. 
The names community is in between, with 
registries having regular contact with IANA. For 
all three, the IANA trademark itself is largely 
emotional, and there have been commercial 
re-branding operations that were harder.

So when you combine the probability of something 
going awry and the implications of dealing with 
the issue, there was no real need to address the 
issue. That is what the Names and Protocol communities said in their proposals.

There were a number of protocol people who did 
not agree and pressed hard to address the issue 
(with the IP and domain name moving from ICANN to 
a neutral body or the IETF Trust. They lost 
within the Protocol process of responding to the 
ICG. Since the numbers groups was happening later 
than the protocol work, these folks moved their 
push for the issue to be addressed to the 
protocol folks. They largely didn't care, and 
ended up acquiescing instead of trying to kill 
the initiative (as IETF leaders had). So the 
recommendation was in the numbers proposal (a 
community which really had no skin in the game!).

And here we are.

So, to answer your question.

- The risk of the IETF Trustees going rogue is 
small and doing something really stupid. They are 
largely people we work with regularly. And the 
IETF itself is the one that would bear the brunt of such a problem.
- The impact of them doing so on the names 
community would be awkward but not devastating or insurmountable.
- We have built a process which is over-engineered (in my opinion).

I have no worries.


At 30/09/2016 09:07 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
>I would like to have a view from the ALT that is 
>making this decision to support the agreements.
>Are you satisfied that there are sufficient 
>checks and balances in place that can address or 
>prevent a situation where IETF Trust trustees go rogue?
>On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>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 <<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 <<mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>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 NNames 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 
>writinng 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.
>ALAC-ExCom mailing list
><mailto:ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-excom/attachments/20160930/154bffbc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list