Internet Engineering Task Force 95, 6 Apr 2016

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF95-IANAPLAN-20160406-1620

Description

IANAPLAN meeting session at IETF95
2016/04/06 1620

A

That's not what.

A

B

Welcome to I in a plan we will start the meeting.

B

B

Everything here is done under the no 12, which is essentially say that everything you say is covered by the statement is referred to the additional documentation on the website.

B

The current agenda is one topic IPR by Andrew. We have asked for a few volunteers to provide to describing what Ted will do. The job race, scribing and Elliot will do the minute taking. If you have your own notes, please send us to sell it to us and we'll be useful. Any changes or suggestions or modifications to the agenda.

B

Ok, thank you. Andrew.

C

So as andrew is coming up and to do his presentation about the IPR just a little just a couple of words about scoping for today and as you will know to recall, this working group achieved consensus of its main work item a year ago or more, and that was our kite ETFs contribution to the iono transition process, our contribution for the protocol parameters, so the plan is has consensus. The plan is in place and we are now at the point of discussing the various paths towards implementation. Today's discussion is an elaboration of material.

C

That's already been shared on the mailing lists in terms of steps, next steps towards handling the IPR for the IANA transition, so what we would like out of today's sessions, these comments reviews things that should be considered further in in this process. We are not seeking consensus on any particular points today. I think, that's that and.

B

Finally, we would prefer to have questions at the end of the presentation.

D

Hi I'm Andrew and that doesn't very loud. Is it how's that ok next, please alright? So you remember that we all agreed to these things and they were on there really a few things that we asked for. We asked for those first two bullets, um which is that you know we have things in the arm in the public domain, and we also asked for this a confirmation that there's going to be a smooth transition and then also another community asked that we include this piece related to the provision of the iono services.

D

So the idea here is that this this ends up with a neutral third party. Next, please so these ones they're being taken care of the way the working group told us to on the working group said, go away. Ioc and you know, implement this in the correct way, and that is in process and people are busy doing that. What's going to happen, is these items are going to be included in the regular supplemental agreement that happens regularly between the ITF and I can in its eye on a roll? Next, please this one.

D

However, this was a little different and, and this principles thing the the idea was that on the rirs asked that we have that, that you know the the IPR, which means basically just the trademarks on around I Anna and the domain names related to I Anna.

D

The one that we really care about is I Anna org, but there are a couple of others, um so those are supposed to end up at the IETF trust and in order to do that, we needed some principles in order that we could tell the lawyers go away and and write this agreement. So that's what these principles are. There is a group of us on. Some of us are on the IOC and some people from the rirs and some people from the icons community uh and we got together and we wrote this document.

D

I circulated this. I don't know a few weeks ago arm quite a few weeks ago now, right in February on oh, yes, 5017 book, I put it on the slide on so the idea here is that you know the lawyers will take this away and they'll on the right in agreement, and the idea here is that we want to make sure that we're all in agreement about this and that's why this is open next, please alright. So this is what it says.

D

The first thing is that the IETF trust becomes an owner of these trademarks on the ITF.

D

Trust is already doing this because it's got the trademark on I ETF, the IETF trust becomes the registrant, the so-called owner, but in in domain name registration things, we don't have any owners, we've got registrants of of this domain name and there's some other names, but iono org is where this stuff is is run right now right, so that's the one that we really care about now, there's a bunch of rules in there in order to prevent operational surprises on, and you can look at the details in the document.

D

If you want I encourage you to do that, um but basically the idea is that you know we can. We can make sure that that everything runs smoothly on we've got another thing in there, which is basically that there's this um advisory body and it tells the IETF trust what to do and that telling what to do is something that the IETF trust agrees to to implement.

D

However, it has to live within the bounds of trademark law, which is a key piece here and then, finally, of course, in order to make all of this work, the IETF trust has to license the whole thing back to the post-transition I Anna, so that they can do these things using the trademark and and the domain name and so on. Next, please, alright. So this satisfies the need that we have right. The trust is on the neutral third-party arm.

D

What we concluded was um we needed to know what the rirs thought about that the rirs said. Oh, yes, the the ITF trust good, neutral third party they're, satisfied with that. There was a little bit of discussion about this in the I kin community, but ultimately they decided that the ITF Trust is a neutral enough third party, that they were okay with that um and I. Think part of that, to be honest with you is pragmatics as well right.

D

The alternative here was really to set up a completely new organization, and nobody had the appetite to do that. So there's not a whole lot to do here and we can do it quickly. um A couple of other items here- I'm, sorry, I- keep turning around and looking, but at home, monitor on a thing that I really want to emphasize is as far as I can tell. This doesn't change the trust at all, so we don't need to make any changes to the trust. um It doesn't change anything that the trust is already doing it.

D

Does these things as I just said, and so I believe that this is also safe for us all right next, please now there is this funny thing about the trust, doing what it's told so there's this: what's it called community coordination group, one thing I will tell you is that if you get ever involved in one of these kinds of things again bring a notebook, so you can write down all of the initials and acronyms and so on, because you just run out of time on so this is an advisory panel that basically tells the IETF trust.

D

We want to do these things, and so it tells the IETF trust we want to do these things for stuff that cuts across the entire I na user community and then things that are related only to one area right. The three people from that community tell that. So it's it's!

D

A total of nine people, three from the IETF three from the rirs and three from the names community and I think they haven't completely sorted out how they're going to define the names community, but it probably comes from you know the various SOS nacs I, don't know how um so so. So that's what it does next, please, but there is this like small issue on so they're, just a couple of them.

D

The first one is this: is this issue of whether the trust can ever act unilaterally, because it's the owner of the domain name and the second one?

D

Is this question about the trust versus community authority on the reason this is important is because normally what we want to do is we want the community to tell people what to do right and- and this is how we normally work around here- but there's a special thing about trademarks, and that is a trademark owner has to enforce its trademark, and so the trust ultimately has to be in the position to say I know you community told us to do this, but actually that's not consistent with our duty.

D

For this trademark, and so we're not gonna, do it and that's an important thing that we need to be aware of it's a requirement of doing trademark we're already doing this with the IOC today, if you told the IOC, don't renew the IETF trademark, the IOC would say: go pound sand. We have 2x, please.

D

Actually it would be the trustees that would say that, but um so the first thing here is this requirement to move to what I think of is legal time, which is not like internet time right you, you do a thing on an Internet time and you just do it and it takes effect right away, and so the purpose of this of these tricky rules around the domain name registration are to make sure that the trust couldn't just one day say: oh and we're changing all the name servers on here and I'm too bad.

D

um So in order to protect the iono operator in order that they can do their job, they want.

D

You know that to be a notification process and for it to take a certain amount of time and so on now right now what the document says is that I'm after so many days and I, think we recommended like between five and ten, the lawyers please sort this out on, then the trust could in fact say nope we're going ahead anyway and that's necessary so that, of course, if there's a dispute, somebody has the unambiguous authority to do something, um and the idea here is that if you had five to ten days or whatever the right number is that the lawyers will work out, um then it would be possible for somebody to file a thing with a court and the court would say: no don't do that and you know, then we would move into legal processes, and all things would be fine in the sense that they ever are fine when you're into legal processes.

D

So that's um that's the one piece that's in there next, please. The other is this Authority problem and, as I said on a trust, the trust has a fiduciary duty to enforce the trademark.

D

So if the community said don't bother with this or if the community said, you need to allow this other party over there to on to use this trademark and it turned out that what the party was doing was handing out the trademark to you, know random people on the internet and saying sure slap this on the outside of your bus or whatever on then, then that would be a problem and in fact the trust must say a know.

D

You're doing this outside of your outside of your authority, no matter what the community says under those circumstances, because the trust needs to make sure that the trademark is being used only within the bounds of the licensed use and if it does anything outside of that, the trust actually has to enforce that. Otherwise, what happens is the trademark becomes invalid and we don't want that and in fact, if the trademark became invalid, because the trust hadn't done that work, the trustees would be in trouble because they'd have failed to to perform their fiduciary duty.

D

So that's the reason for this on, and this is already a situation as I said at the IETF. That trust today holds the ietf um trademark, and this is why you know there are these annoying things that happen from time to time where somebody can't put can't just put IETF on a t-shirt without getting a license. That's because of this very same issue. So we already have this problem today. Next, please, alright, the next thing on where you know.

D

If there are any tiny edits to these principles, then obviously we need to make them I haven't seen any on. So as far as I know, it's good to go we're gonna hand these principles to the lawyers and say: okay now go and implement. This on, you know, come up with a real legal agreement that actually actually implements all of this we're gonna do that like next week. So um if you have comments, you better get them in really soon and I. Think that's everything right. It's all I had to say.

C

So comments or questions race to the mic.

E

Uh-Huh hi I'm John Lavigne I'm, not a lawyer, but I play one on the net, I mean. Basically the draft looks fine to me and I have two and a half comments. One is the language about exactly what the Registrar has to do looks to be over specified and I would worry about the case where they come back and say you know we asked all thousand registrar's and none of them offer exactly that bundle of services, so I would encourage you to genera size it actually specifc.

E

It needs to. It needs to be at least three days of delay in the needs to be notifications to the relevant party relevant.

D

Parties also before you go on I can.

E

D

You that it's over specified because of one of the parties insisting that it be over specified I, can tell.

F

D

Can't say that astonishes me I can tell you that there are at least three commercial companies that I know of that. Do all of those things: okay, okay, the.

E

Other thing is: I, don't see, Janice.

D

D

Higher hello down thing has gone here: oh there we go away I'm ever back sort of hung me2 on so yes, uh and that is a problem and I. Don't think we have agreement about that. Oh yeah, oh yeah,.

E

My second question was: who pays for the incremental costs of, for example, trademark maintenance fees which can get expensive in multiple countries.

D

And I think the answer to that is your right and we don't have an answer to that and since the trust agreed to do this, it seems that in some way it's the trust. I can has suggested that there would be some money set aside for this, but there's nowhere in any of the agreements that that is specified. Yet yes, and since.

E

There's no one behind me. I will ask one final question, which is: I noticed there is no provision for setting up the operational rules for the CCG, so, for example, if a quorum of the CCG is five people, five people show up in a meeting and three of them vote to tell the tell the trust to do some dumbass thing is that an instruction and- and you don't know no- my point is none of us know. Right I would be happier if it said that the CCG will define and publishes operating principle Percy jerz.

E

So I can. I can suggest that we put that in I.

D

E

I, don't I don't care what they.

D

E

D

We know I think actually that would be a good idea, so I I wouldn't be surprised. Actually, if the other communities just said yes, what a good idea on, because you're quite right, we don't have those in their arm and as nearly as I can tell there is nobody in the icon community who would be opposed to creating more procedures for anything so well.

E

And might well, and my yes by my particular.

E

F

It was a real pain to get all the negotiation done across all the communities. Thank you very much and I. Think if you just say the the CC thing has to work in an open and transparent manner with public minutes. I think it'd be fine.

D

Well, I take John's point, though, that in fact specifying having them specify in advance what quorum is before before they have a decision to make never never hurts.

D

All right, I, don't see anything else. I.

D

Guess we're done! Thank you very much.

G

H

Hello, hello, hello, hi, everyone we're trying to take some hums in the room right next door, so if people could take their conversations into the hallway, that would be great. Thank you.

E

Okay, hummed us um dos.

I

Texting a problem.

G

B