All, I've attached the current draft of the Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements. This is the "stable" draft which has now been in existence for a few weeks. The other two communities have passed this document on to their counsel for review and comment. The intention is to certify this document to Sidley for review and comment, assuming the CWG approves that action on today's call. In addition to the attached document, two subsequent suggestions were made in the coordination group that prepared this document. The intention is to pass these along to Sidley as well. The suggestions, and my reactions, are set out below. First in the bit about the registration rules for iana.org and friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're talking about are status values in the shared registration system -- clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and clientTransferProhibited. I think this is just a clarification, and no big deal.
Agree.
A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting, and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other decision-making processes they use. A suggestion in the room was that the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of the communities must be present for quorum. I think this is a good principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no making up rules when a decision is needed). Does anyone object? Does it seem reasonable?
Overall, this seems sensible. On CCG procedures, we may want to have a "charter" for the group, although there may be other ways to ensure that rules are in place. As such, how we put those rules in place should be kept general (i.e., not so specific as 'publish at its first meeting'). However, the point on quorum is one where we might want to be specific now -- this echoes discussions we've been having about quorum and decisions making in the CSC oversight group for IANA functions. I think a majority with at least one rep from each community is a pretty reasonable "floor" for quorum requirements and one I have no trouble supporting at this point. Of course, this and many other details will get resolved when we move from this "term sheet" stage to "definitive documentation." What's most important now is to keep moving toward that stage.
Greg