[ALAC] Consensus Call: Decision regarding IANA Transition

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Oct 1 14:56:07 UTC 2016


Nope. The new RoP are now in effect which means we no longer need seconds for most motions, but thanks for the thought!

Alan 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On October 1, 2016 5:50:17 AM EDT, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>I guess you will need a seconder for this? If yes then I second.
>Otherwise
>you have my +1 as well
>
>Regards
>
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>On 30 Sep 2016 7:23 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>wrote:
>
>> Given no opposition raised by any ALAC Members, the ALT has
>unanimously
>> supported this process and specifics on behalf of the ALAC and I have
>so
>> informed ICANN.
>>
>> Through this e-mail, I am requesting a Consensus Call of the ALAC
>> ratifying the ALT decision.
>>
>> *With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC
>*ratifying
>> the ALT decision as per Paragraph 6.2 of our Rules of Procedure.
>>
>> The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Thursday, 06 October 2016.
>>
>> If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either
>this
>> list or to me directly.
>>
>> Although message indicating support are welcome, they are not
>necessary.
>> Should this Consensus Call fail due to significant opposition
>(greater than
>> 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1), we will revert to a formal
>vote.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> At 29/09/2016 02:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALAC SUPPORTING THIS
>ACTION,
>> PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
>> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20161001/6ced0269/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list