Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Missing clauses?

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:03:20 +0200

Dear Brian,

So it looks like we agree that some additional text, or a new annex, or whatever, might be needed.

The charter of this WG says: "... the mechanisms required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or agreements. The WG will identify, but not create, such required agreements."

So, as you say below, the WG could identify the requirement for such additional text, or annex, or whatever.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: mardi, 30. septembre 2014 23:36
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Missing clauses?
> 
> 
> On 30/09/2014 21:31, Richard Hill wrote:
> > There was some discussion on this list regarding whether or not 
> some clauses
> > in the IANA functions contract between NTIA and ICANN are not 
> found in the
> > MoU between ICANN and IETF.
> > 
> > As I recall, the issue of intellectual property rights was 
> raised.  Indeed
> > the IANA functions contract contains clauses regarding rights 
> in data (H.4
> > and H.5; a more detailed version of those is found in 1.9.4 and 1.9.5 of
> > ICANN's proposal (Part 2), which is incorporated by reference in the
> > contract).
> > 
> > I don't see anything to that effect in the MoU between ICANN and IETF.
> 
> There isn't. It was considered a hot potato at that time.
> 
> In view of Steve Crocker's statements a couple of months ago, it's
> perhaps less of a hot potato now, and the IETF has a vehicle for
> accepting IPR which did not exist in 2000. However, I doubt that
> this WG can do any more than suggest that an IPR agreement between
> the IETF Trust and IANAng would be desirable to ensure that the
> registry contents are perpetually available to the public.
> 
>     Brian
>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 02:07:37 +0200

At 15:03 01/10/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>"... the mechanisms required to address the removal of the 
>overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or 
>agreements. The WG will identify, but not create, such required agreements."
>

Richard,

This WG is supposed to (unless directed otherwise by the IESG) 
identify how to maintain the status quo in spite of the totally new 
operational situation created when you remove an overarching contract 
that bundles things together.

I am afraid that the only way to get something done properly within 
the IETF is to prototype and experiment this new operational 
situation as per ICANN ICP-3 in order to show that this is totally 
technology and ICANN policy consistent and conformant, and to request 
IAB for guidance in this new architectural context where ICANN will 
only be one entity inter pares (even if it is a huge incumbent one).

The debate will then be on how the incumbents (ICANN, IANA, Verisign, 
NTIA, RIRs) will be legally bound to accept the competition of the newcomers.

Since it is to be expected that the study and development of new 
prototypes, such as the MYCANN-Plug-in, may take some time and one 
cannot expect that possible equivalent governmental plug-ins will be 
disclosed prior to Sept 30, 2015, I am afraid that only an appeal 
concerning  the WG/IANAPLAN charter may give the IESG the opportunity 
to tune the current IETF strategy.

The option we have to consider as consistent with RFC 6852 is the 
emergence of several RFC conformant inter-plug-in VGNs, each with its 
own root and IANA adaptation. Some kind of "inter-NATs" 
concatenation. The question is the relation with these entities and 
with their standards whatever their formal status (cf. RFC 6852). May 
I also remind you that these global community SDOs will be bound by 
"broad consensus", not by "rough consensus". They will also be 
constrained by their community economics rather than by network-wide 
intercompatibility - because innovation will be fostered by their 
technical competition.

jfc

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 06:46:53 -0700

> registry contents are perpetually available to the public.

Agree.

Jari

---

From: Richard Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:08:50 +0200

I also agree. 

Best Richard

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.