I'll address this question to Izumi, since I believe she is on this list. In trying to understand these "requirements" it is unclear what the following requirement means: - Will ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire Internet community. It would be very helpful if you could can explain this requirement in some more detail. For instance, what uses of assets are you thinking of? What is use in a non-discriminatory manner vs. use in a discriminatory manner? How would these uses benefit the entire Internet community? How could these uses not benefit the entire Internet community? Also, I would like to understand your thinking in characterizing the IETF Trust as "neutral," when it is controlled by the IETF and has the IETF as its sole beneficiary. Thanks! Greg On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Izumi_Okutani <izumiokutani@yahoo.co.jp> *Subject: **[Ianaplan] Fwd: IANA Intellectual Property Rights: Minimum Requirements* *Date: *October 16, 2015 at 5:06:15 PM GMT+1 *To: *"ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>

Dear IANAPLAN WG,

For your information, we would like to share the minimum IPR requirements the CRISP Team has developed from the numbers community perspective, and based on these principles, support for the approach introduced on the IANAPLAN.

Regards,

Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP Team

Begin forwarded message:

*差出人:* Izumi_Okutani <izumiokutani@yahoo.co.jp> *日時:* 2015年10月16日 16:11:31 GMT+1 *宛先:* "ianaxfer@nro.net" <ianaxfer@nro.net> *件名:* *IANA Intellectual Property Rights: Minimum Requirements *

Dear all,

The CRISP Team would like to share the minimum requirements we have developed on the IANA Intellectual Property Rights. They will serve to highlight the key points from the number community perspective in coordination among the operational communities to prepare for the IPR implementation.

Further, we note that the IETF community has shared an approach for implementation of the IPR on the IANAPLAN mailing list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gbPZgVdXAKIQKJRM1po6Nbod-6w

Based on an understanding that details of the text of the agreements are to be further considered with coordination among the three operational communities, the CRISP Team observes no inconsistencies between the approach introduced in the IANAPLAN and the minimum IPR requirements for the numbers community. We support this approach and open to discuss further details in how we prepare its implementation.

===

IANA Intellectual Property Rights: Minimum Requirements

This document outlines the Internet Number Community’s minimum requirements regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), as expressed in the Number Community proposal. It is the view of the CRISP Team that these requirements must be implemented as part of the transition.

Minimum Requirements Regarding the IANA Trademark and IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> <http://iana.org/>

The IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> <http://iana.org/> domain name will be associated with the IANA numbering services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator.

The IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> <http://iana.org/> domain will be transferred and permanently held by an organisation that:

- Is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator

- Is an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator

- Is neutral, trusted by the community of IANA stakeholders and has a proven track record of competence and transparency

- Will facilitate a smooth transition of licenses and permissions should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future

- Will ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire Internet community.

From the Internet Number Community 's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role based on the minimum requirements described above.

Minimum Requirements Regarding the IPR Status of Registries Related to the Performance of the IANA Numbering Services

The IPR status of registries related to the performance of IANA numbering services must ensure free and unrestricted access to the public registry data throughout the stewardship transition and beyond.

In particular:

- The IANA Number Registries must be in the public domain

- Non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator and will be transferred to its successor(s)

- All rights to non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services must be transferred to the RIRs

== end

Regards,

Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP Team

_______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

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

On October 17th Alissa had shared the CRISP requirements on this list. In preparation of the upcoming CWG meeting I thought it would be useful to re-send a copy of the earlier IETF thoughts on this matter, although I think it may have been shared previously as well. I would also like to say a couple of high-level things. Earlier we all had found agreement in the three communities that a neutral organisation - not the IANA operator - is a reasonable place for the IPRs and domains. We’ve also said that the steps beyond that agreement are implementation. In developing that implementation plan, I think that it is beneficial to start from drafting requirements and perhaps a framework of the arrangements before jumping into the question of who serves as the holding entity or the details of the contracts. With that in mind, the IETF has thought about the framework, and I wanted to copy you on our initial thoughts, at the end of this e-mail. The basic idea is that whatever we do among the five parties (3xOC, 1xoperator, 1xholding) we will have to specify the roles and rights and responsibilities regarding the IANA IPR contractually. (It is important to note that those rights are affected not only by who holds the ownership but also by which contracts are signed with that entity.) From our perspective at the IETF, we are keen to work with you in the CWG and CRISP to figure out what the right answers are here. We’re open to different arrangements, and believe that the work needs to start from specifying the expectations or requirements. Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow, For reference, there are a couple of relevant documents that relate to this discussion. The ICANN board statement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-08-15-en and the CRISP requirements: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/DfdUZlPorTObc___R8CSHCsfq2g Here’s what the ICG’s current and final-but-for-the-ccwg-conclusion document says about IPR:

In early 2015 the ICG identified a potential compatibility issue regarding the IANA trademarks and the iana.org domain name. The numbers community expects that both are associated with the IANA functions and not with a particular IANA Functions Operator. The numbers community prefers that they be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.

Although the protocol parameters proposal did not speak to this issue, in response to an ICG inquiry the protocol parameters community indicated that it had no objection and was willing to help contribute to that arrangement.[1]

The names proposal contains text that refers to the trademark in Annex S. In response to an ICG inquiry about the text, the CWG indicated that the text is clearly is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG.[2] In effect, the names proposal did not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademarks (and it is completely silent as regards the domain name). Since then, the CWG has confirmed that its position is consistent with that of the other two communities in that it has no objection to the IANA trademarks and the IANA domain names being transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Functions Operator.[3] These community positions are also consistent with the ICANN Board statement on the same topic.[4]

As a result, the ICG considers the three proposals to be compatible. While the requirements in the transition plan are therefore clear, work remains to actually implement the requirements. Detailed implementation requirements for the entity holding the IPR will be agreed and specified and an appropriate entity will then be created or selected such that it can meet the detailed requirements. The ICG notes that the operational communities are coordinating these details, and the ICG expects this coordination to continue during the implementation phase to ensure that the requirements are met.

The IETF trust framework proposal is below. It has been taken from https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gbPZgVdXAKIQKJRM1po6Nbod-6w and is copied below:

• From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> • To: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan at ietf.org> • Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:03:45 -0700 • List-id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>

We have discussed trademarks and domains in the past, and came to a basic agreement. Meanwhile, the names community has also indicated that the “IPR in an independent entity” model is acceptable to them. But the details for any of this are left for implementation phase. That phase will take place once the overall transition plan goes forward.

The IETF Trust has worked in the background to understand the situation better, and obviously, if something needs to be done, ultimately there has to be agreements and concrete actions need to be taken. But before we are that far, we have to talk about the overall approach and find a common ground about the implementation with all three communities.

With this in mind, the Trust has written up a high-level description of what it believes the approach could be. We thought that this would be useful for both this WG as well as for communication with others.

Please see the description below. The Trust would appreciate any feedback you have. The goal is that after getting that feedback (and after revision as needed) we could have a description that can be used in discussing further implementation steps.

Jari

---

As a part of their transition proposal, the Internet Number Community stated that it was their preference that the IANA trademark and iana.org domain would be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, and from their perspective the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.

On 8 February, the ICG asked the IETF and Internet Number Community to coordinate their transition proposals with regards to the trademarks and domains. Discussion in the IETF working group indicated that the proposals can be compatible.

At the request of the IANAPLAN WG the IETF Chair on 17 February 2015 asked the IETF Trust whether the Trust would be willing to hold IANA intellectual property. Citing Article 5.2 of the Trust Agreement whereby the Trust could hold rights in intellectual property and domain names relevant to the IETF, the Trustees on 19 February said they would be willing to hold the IANA intellectual property. See http://trustee.ietf.org/documents/Trust-Minutes-2015-06-25-01.pdf

At the request of the IETF Chair the IETF Trust has engaged in discussions with the Internet Number Community about the possibility of the Trust assuming this responsibility. The following is some background of the Trust’s position and an overview of how the role and responsibilities may be fulfilled.

While this fulfillment is a part of implementation rather than the ICG proposal currently out for public comment, the IETF Trust wants to ensure progress on determining those implementation steps. The Trust is of course only one of the possible ways to satisfy the requirements from the Internet Number Community. Nevertheless, the Trust wanted to start by suggesting an overall framework for one way of satisfying the requirements. There will be a time to discuss the details, but first it would be good to have an understanding if this overall framework is something that works for the relevant communities. This is only an early proposal. Feedback and suggestions are very welcome.

The Trust believes it would need to enter into three different types of agreements to effect the transfer of the IANA intellectual property (IP) and to enter into licensing arrangements with the IANA service provider(s).

These agreements include:

1. An Agreement between ICANN and the IETF Trust transferring the IANA IP to the IETF Trust

2. Community Assurance Agreements between the IETF Trust and each of the names, numbers, and protocol communities (the IANA communities) regarding the Trust’s commitments to each as further described below, and

3. Agreement(s) whereby the IETF Trust provides for the use of the iana.org domain, or a subdomain, and licenses the use of the IANA trademarks to the IANA service provider(s) selected by the IANA communities.

The Trustees are open, in principle, to the idea of entering into these agreements. The Trust understands that each community would need to follow its own internal processes before entering into any agreements, or selecting an IANA service provider.

The Community Assurance Agreements with the IANA communities would establish and recognize the responsibilities for each community to identify and enter into agreement with their selected service provider, and for the IETF Trust to provide, update, and revoke licenses as needed to support these selections.

In order to preserve the value and integrity of the IANA trademarks, the IETF Trust would maintain, license and monitor the use of the trademarks. Trust actions would include enforcement against unauthorized users and monitoring the quality and uses by the licensed user(s). The Trust would work with the relevant IANA communities to address issues involving a licensee before taking action to maintain the quality of the trademarks.

The exact details of the agreements would be subject to negotiation among the affected parties.