The letter from ALAC to the CCG co-chairs approves the transfer of the IANA IPR to the IPMC, which – as far as I am concerned – was the question that was asked. What more do you need ? For all the rest, at this point I have neither a brief nor an opinion.
In so far that there is a shortage of time, that is entirely down to the actions and inactions of the IETF. If a CCG vote is called before the end of this year, I shall positively abstain.

My concerns? Well, Yes, I have some concerns relating to what we have learnt from this sorry story for the future of IPMC as a whole. These relate to transparency and accountability in general and specifically to the necessary policies, procedures and rules to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again with the IPMC.

On 22 Dec 2025, at 17:01, Russ Housley via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Christopher:

Unless you can articulate an explicit concern, I'm strongly opposed to a lack of action that will force the IETF Trust to remain in existence into the new year. We were told more than six months ago of the intent to transfer all assets before the end of 2025 and close the IETF Trust. There is a cost to the continued existence of the IETF Trust into 2026, and we should not impose cost. Based on the letter from the ALAC Chair, that part of the community is fine with the asset transfer, even though they are not happy with the process that got to this point.

Russ

On Dec 18, 2025, at 5:36 PM, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:

Dear Russ:

Thankyou, Noted.

For my part, I need a certain period to confer and consult before furnishing a considered reply, particularly as this will influence the way in which IETF and CCG conduct our business in the future.
As you will have already noticed, this Season is not the best for deciding anything.

I suggest that we work towards a scheduled and properly prepared inclusive meeting towards mid-January.

With the Seasons' Greetings

Christopher

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: [CCG] Amended IPMC Bylaws are in Effect
Date: 18 December 2025 at 21:08:55 CET
To: ccg@ietf.org

As indicated by the attached note, the amended IPMC Bylaws are now in effect.

Since the CCG was unable to determine a time when we could meet this week with all nine members present, I suggest that the CCG work on a letter to the IETF Trust over email.

I think that there are three points that are needed:

1. Consent to transfer of IANA IPR.

2. Previous agreements with IETF Trust still stand,

3. A statement of displeasure with the process.

Regarding item 2, I think we want to explicitly support a novation agreement. A novation agreement is a three-party legal contract that replaces an original contract by substituting a new party for one of the original parties, transferring all rights and obligations to the new party and releasing the original party from liability. The previous agreements are:

- The IANA IPR Assignment Agreement, dated 1 October 2016

- The IANA IPR Community Agreement, dated 1 October 2016

- The IANA IPR License Agreement for IANA Names Services, dated 1 October 2016

- The IANA IPR License Agreement for IANA Numbers Services, dated 1 October 2016

- The IANA IPR License Agreement for IANA Protocol Parameter Services, dated 1 October 2016

Regarding item 3, the final part of the ALAC letter seems to reflect our view.

Does any CCG member have things to add or remove from this approach?

Russ

From: The IETF Trust <ietf-trust@ietf.org>
Subject: [tlp-interest] Conclusion of the 60 day comment period on the October 2025 IPMC Proposed Amendments
Date: December 18, 2025 at 2:07:55 PM EST
To: "IETF Announcement List" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: tlp-interest@ietf.org
Reply-To: tlp-interest@ietf.org

Conclusion of the 60 day comment period on the October 2025 IPMC Proposed Amendments

On December 10, 2025, after reviewing community comments received, the Directors of the IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation (IPMC) voted to adopt the bylaws amendments proposed in October 2025 and submitted to the community for the bylaws-mandated 60-day comment period[1].

These amended IPMC Bylaws are now in effect.

The current IPMC Bylaws along with the complete history of the IETF IPMC Bylaws are available at:
https://www.ietf-ipm.org/administration/bylaws/

The IETF IPMC Directors thank everyone who took the time to submit comments on the proposed amendments. In addition to supporting the proposed amendments, some commenters suggested bylaws changes above and beyond the proposal. The IETF IPMC directors intend to review and give consideration to the additional suggestions submitted. Please note that any resulting new proposed amendments themselves will be subject to a future 60-day comment process.

The comments received are posted in the IETF TLP-INTEREST mailing archive[2].

[1] Original notice: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/SWYX5CDJciD6W9qNsxmNaK-suZg/
[2] TLP-INTEREST archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tlp-interest/

Regards,
Glenn Deen,
IPMC President on behalf of the IPMC Board of Directors

_______________________________________________
CCG mailing list -- ccg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ccg-leave@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.