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(a)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.
