Hmmm … I though that had been settled for the time being. I pointed out some time ago that the IETF Trust's stock-in-trade was not copyrights, trademarks and domain names, but we decided to go with them notwithstanding, since any alternative would have been even less satisfactory. I suppose that if the IETF Trust 'goes rogue' (unlikely), then the ISOC Board of Trustees is the back-stop. TBC. I also recall asking ISOC to document their relationship with the Trust, but I didn't see anything come back … ? Meanwhile, all of Sidley's legal flummery that Andrew Sullivan takes exception to, could be covered by an exchange of letters or an MoU. At least pro tem. CW On 02 Jun 2016, at 18:00, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote:

Lise,

Thanks for forwarding these documents. I read through them quickly and may have missed something, so apologies in advance if the point I’m making below is already under control.

It’s my understanding the decision has already been made and agreed to for the IANA IPR to be held by the IETF Trust. I also understand that the relevant parties are working out those details and that ICANN will cooperate fully.

Much of the language in intellectual property agreements seems focused on copyright and trade mark concerns. The use of the iana.org domain name is not discussed in the same depth, but that’s actually the most sensitive and important part of this exercise. There is quite a lot of protection built into these agreements to guard against ICANN or PTI misbehaving in various ways — “going rogue” is the colloquial term — but there is no language, at least not on quick reading, that protects ICANN and the community we serve, if the IETF Trust trustees go rogue. What does “going rogue” mean in this context. The nightmare scenario is the trustees exercise their right as owners of the iana.org domain name to abruptly change the operating parameters, particularly the name server (NS) records, so that operational use of the iana.org ceases to be available with no notice or recourse.

Fortunately, all of the principals involved understand this issue and have agreed to use a registrar that has the means to require multiple parties to concur on big changes. So, with respect to implementing the transfer of the IPR to the IETF Trust and then establishing the appropriate operating rules, I think we’re in good shape. However, this document does not seem to address this point, and hence I’m concerned that people with less understanding of the operational realities may take issue with how the terms of this agreement are actually implemented.

Steve

On Jun 2, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:

...

Dear CWG,

The Client Committee has received the attached documents from Sidley as a preliminary advice in relation to the IANA IPR. We are going to briefly discuss the document on the CWG meeting today and Sidley will be attending the call. This document has been sent to the two other communities, numbering and protocol, for their information today. We still need to discuss the feedback from their advisors.

Best regards, Jonathan and Lise <Redline Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements (Sidley 0531 vs Original).pdf><Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements, Sidley Comments May 31.DOCX><IPR Memo.pdf>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

Thank you Andrew On 3 Jun 2016 17:39, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

...

I pointed out some time ago that the IETF Trust's stock-in-trade was not copyrights, trademarks and domain names

What do you think its stock in trade is? Holding copyrights, trademarks, and domain names is what it does.

...

Meanwhile, all of Sidley's legal flummery that Andrew Sullivan takes exception to, could be covered by an exchange of letters or an MoU. At least pro tem.

I don't take exception to any of what they said. I was simply trying to explain what I understood to be the state of affairs, and I thought it was important to get that out for people to consider, since we don't have a heck of a lot of time.

Best regards,

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:11:56PM +0200, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:

Well actually, most of the IETF RFCs, were they to be in the commercial domain, would be assimilated to patents.

Were my grandmother to have wheels, she'd be a bus? I don't know how that counter-factual "were they to be in the commercial domain" helps us think even a little bit sensibly about this. The point of standards is interoperability. My employer doesn't donate my time to the IETF because it's being nice. It wants the Internet to work, and "working" on a network of networks requires open standards that people voluntarily adopt. That's what it means to have an internet.

Even the computer programs (that could be protected by copyright subject to the interfaces exception) would, in the US, be protectable by patents. Correct?

There is a big difference between standards and programs. But in fact, the IETF has a policy about included code snippets in IETF documents. They're required to have what free software people would regard as a permissive free license (basically BSD-like). I hope that helps, though I'm not totally sure I see why it's relevant to this list or this topic. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

All, Disregarding substance for a moment, it may be useful to remind where we are in process. 1. The three operational communities worked together to propose what we perceived to be a viable and acceptable solution to home the IANA IPR 2. Through discussion and inevitable compromise, a document was prepared to reflect a common view this. The document was prepared without legal input / advice. 3. It was agreed to share the document with lawyers (advising the three operational communities) but there was not complete agreement as to whether to do this in sequence or in parallel. 4. From a names / CWG perspective, we felt we should see a first pass from one set of lawyers and then have that reviewed by another i.e. in series. We were mindful of logistics and costs. 5. As time passed without any legal feedback, we proposed that the CWG move ahead with a Sidley review of the document in any event, and so instructed Sidley to do so. What we now have is the feedback from the Sidley review. 6. We have not discussed Sidley's input within the CWG and nor have we had the opportunity to discuss this with the other two communities (although Lise did share Sidley's review documents yesterday). It seems to me that we now need to review the legal advice, discuss within the CWG and discuss with the other communities. Then agree next steps / a way forward. As ever, constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: 03 June 2016 15:01 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements

-----Original Message-----

In the General Comments bit, there's an overarching comment that includes this: "the participants also may need to consider amendments to the IETF Trust documents …".

I understand uneasiness in CWG about this issue, but I want to be crystal clear: modifying the Trust Agreement _at all_ for the purposes of this effort is simply not on. It involves an enormous amount of process in the IETF, and we actually don't have time now to complete such changes even if I thought that it would be practically possible to make such changes to the IETF Trust. I've tried to be open about this all along, so I hope it comes as no surprise.

Having been part of this process from the beginning, I can vouch for the fact that this point was made repeatedly during our discussions of the IANA domain and IPR. I was firmly of the impression that the group that worked on this had concluded that the benefits of relying on the IETF Trust outweighed any benefits that might come from a hypothetical need to modify the Trust Agreement. I thought we had made this choice long ago. Surprised that it is coming up again.

If people conclude that it is necessary to modify the Trust Agreement to satisfy the concerns of the CWG, then the IETF Trust is not a candidate at all for this role. I hope we all realise that this means we'd need a new trust to be established. While I think creating such a trust is about an afternoon of work for any lawyer competent in this area of the law, in my opinion the organizational details that we'd have to work out in such a case are altogether unlikely to happen in time for this all to be completed by September.

Completely agree, this is one of the main reasons why we chose to go with the IETF Trust. --MM _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

I wonder if we need to be thinking about a short term solution and a long term solution? For example: using the IETF trust as is to facilitate the transition in the short term and then after the transition occurs creating a new trust or making needed changes to the IETF trust. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 8:46 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed Principal Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements Hi everyone, Lise, thanks for posting this. Let me start by saying that this note is my personal view, and is not intended to represent the consensus or in any way the position of the Trust, any Trustee (even me), or the IETF in general. I just thought that in the interests of time I'd get out a response that reflects my own view. I'm also sharing the document and these comments with the IETF Trust's counsel. Finally, let's all please remember that this is supposed to be a statement of agreed upon principles that is supposed to guide counsel on drafting particular agreements, and not itself any kind of legally binding agreement. In the General Comments bit, there's an overarching comment that includes this: "the participants also may need to consider amendments to the IETF Trust documents …". I understand uneasiness in CWG about this issue, but I want to be crystal clear: modifying the Trust Agreement _at all_ for the purposes of this effort is simply not on. It involves an enormous amount of process in the IETF, and we actually don't have time now to complete such changes even if I thought that it would be practically possible to make such changes to the IETF Trust. I've tried to be open about this all along, so I hope it comes as no surprise. If people conclude that it is necessary to modify the Trust Agreement to satisfy the concerns of the CWG, then the IETF Trust is not a candidate at all for this role. I hope we all realise that this means we'd need a new trust to be established. While I think creating such a trust is about an afternoon of work for any lawyer competent in this area of the law, in my opinion the organizational details that we'd have to work out in such a case are altogether unlikely to happen in time for this all to be completed by September. On comment/footnote 14, the goal of the restriction to "technical" changes is to make the scope the practical, operational effects of the changes. That is, I don't think we want everyone to have to agree if (say) the Trustees have a new technical contact because the staff person actually handling the mailbox has rotated. What we want is that everyone must consent in cases where anything that directly affects the operation of the iana.org services could be changed. On comment/footnote 15, if the Trust were to fail in this duty it would have failed in its fiduciary duty to maintain its assets. If we actually get into that situation, the Trustees are in rather big trouble (and the IETF recall procedures would kick in). But there is not, as nearly as I can tell, a way to make the Trust otherwise "responsible" to the OCs except through this somewhat roundabout mechanism. On the other hand, speaking for a moment as one who is a Trustee, since I'm personally liable under such a circumstance, I have an awfully large interest in making sure it never happens. I leave it to the community to evaluate whether that may be enough protection. On comment/footnote 16, the optional ability of the admin contact to cause these changes was just intended for convenience. The point was that the tech contact _had to_ approve of such changes. Item vi covers the case where the tech contact initiates the change. Item vii covers the case where the admin contact initiates the change; the "optionality" was to allow for the eventual agreements simply not to allow the admin contact to make the change at all. On comment/footnote 18, there is in my opinion no way to cause the Trust to agree to the ICANN IRP. If this is really a CWG requirement, then I think the Trust can't do it. See above about what that might entail. On comment/footnote 20, I think the idea is that each community has to decide that itself, and that's beyond the scope here. It should be part of the agreements in each case, but this is a principles document to which detailed agreements are supposed to conform. On comment/footnote 21, I will note that the Trust is busily ensuring that it has funding backup for this, but I expect it would be dunning the relevant communities for the necessary donations also if it actually had to undertake such enforcement. For whatever it's worth, the Trust has already had to do this with the IETF Marks, so it's not like we don't know how to do it or what is involved. On comment/footnote 22, I think this is a missed search and replace. We had more than one acronym circulating, and it should be "CCG". On comment/footnote 23, all the legal advice I've seen suggests that the Trust could not possibly delegate a second right of enforcement to others without that causing its own legal problems. If the CWG counsel could explain why that's not the case, it'd be helpful to me. On comment/footnote 24, it'd be helpful to me to understand what the breach scenario is. The Trust is to be the sole owner of the IPR and licenses the licensee. Is the idea the case where the Trust does not follow the license grant somehow? In that case, surely the "what if" scenario needs to be hammered out as part of each license? On comment/footnote 25, I don't think I disagree, but since this is just a principles document I don't see why we have to specify everything. It's just supposed to be the basis for instructions to counsel in developing the relevant agreements. On comment/footnote 26, I think the Trust has tried not to raise this issue because we think we're trying to do something in the interests of the Internet, and we have been assuming that if things get to the point where there is a disagreement about how to pay for everything then the entire IANA arrangement will come apart pretty quickly anyway. In that case, how to pay for this problem will be the least of our worries, so as a practical matter we've just tried to leave it out. I suspect that if we actually have to negotiate such fees and so on now, we're not going to complete in time. I hope these are useful comments and responses. Again, please note that these are my own opinions and have not been checked with anyone, and are not an official position of any body or any person or so on. Best regards, A On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:33:18PM +0000, Lise Fuhr wrote:

Dear CWG,

The Client Committee has received the attached documents from Sidley as a preliminary advice in relation to the IANA IPR. We are going to briefly discuss the document on the CWG meeting today and Sidley will be attending the call. This document has been sent to the two other communities, numbering and protocol, for their information today. We still need to discuss the feedback from their advisors.

Best regards, Jonathan and Lise

_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship