From nobody Wed Apr 5 07:55:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346EC127241 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:55:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7__sdCoSeN-A for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E52D128854 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 07:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E403030042F for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:55:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id R9nK57nA7cCA for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from new-host-7.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECB1130028A; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:55:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:55:54 -0400 Cc: IAB To: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) Archived-At: Subject: [CCG] IETF-appointed CCG members X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:55:51 -0000 Just to make sure that the CCG members are informed=E2=80=A6 At the IETF 98 meeting last week in Chicago, Ted Hardie was selected as = the IAB Chair. The IAB Chair is one of the Trustees of the IETF Trust, = so Ted will vacate his seat on the CCG. This leave me as the only = remaining IETF-appointed CCG member. The IAB will fill the vacancies as = part of appointing people to the CCG in the next few months. The IAB = will appoint one person for a one-year term and two people for two-year = terms. Russ From nobody Wed Apr 5 08:02:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D4612741D for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:02:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o0GyQo9Ehmsb for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from authsmtp.register.it (authsmtp08.register.it [81.88.48.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92CB129446 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([91.181.159.234]) by paganini32 with id 4f1o1v00S53jmSb01f1pMm; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 17:01:58 +0200 X-Rid: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu@91.181.159.234 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: CW Mail In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:01:48 +0200 Cc: ccg@ietf.org, IAB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCG] IETF-appointed CCG members X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:02:07 -0000 Thankyou for letting us know. CW On 05 Apr 2017, at 16:55, Russ Housley wrote: > Just to make sure that the CCG members are informed=85 >=20 > At the IETF 98 meeting last week in Chicago, Ted Hardie was selected = as the IAB Chair. The IAB Chair is one of the Trustees of the IETF = Trust, so Ted will vacate his seat on the CCG. This leave me as the = only remaining IETF-appointed CCG member. The IAB will fill the = vacancies as part of appointing people to the CCG in the next few = months. The IAB will appoint one person for a one-year term and two = people for two-year terms. >=20 > Russ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CCG mailing list > CCG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg From nobody Mon Apr 10 12:01:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6204128BB6 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9hd0yZLWUWr for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F38127369 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E235300455 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id XdWRvi9xBiyg for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from new-host-2.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E56730041B; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:01:45 -0400 Cc: IETF Trustees Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> To: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 19:01:50 -0000 I have not seen anyone raise concerns with the way that the IETF Trust = resolve their earlier comments. Is more time needed for further review? Russ > On Mar 30, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote: >=20 > All; >=20 > On 1st March the Trust sent proposed changes to the License > Agreements with ICANN to the CCG and requested feedback. >=20 > Below are the Trust responses to the questions that were raised. >=20 > We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG. >=20 > In addition, we believe these are the Next Steps necessary to=20 > complete the transfer of the domains and we welcome your review=20 > and comments on these as well. >=20 > Next Steps >=20 > a. Trust sends response to CCG questions > b. CCG reviews and comments > c. Upon acceptance, Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review=20 > [Exhibit E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements] > d. Community Review > e. With no substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute=20 > amendments to the three License Agreements > f. Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A > [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License Agreements] > g. Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC Agreement for Community = Review=20 > h. Community Review > i. With no substantive changes, Trust executes CSC Agreement > j. Test of CSC conformance to the requirements=20 > k. Assuming successful test, all IANA domains transferred to Trust >=20 > Again, we welcome your comments and suggestions. >=20 > Kaveh Ranjbar > Chair, IETF Trust >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > Responses to Questions Raised by CCG: >=20 > Q1: Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In > items iii and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as > above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. above". > However, in item ii, the words "after the same period as above=C2=B2 = have > not been changed. >=20 > Is the different approach in item ii deliberate? >=20 > A1. After review of ii in relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our > opinion that the same conditions should apply and have been = incorporated. >=20 > The specific change would be as follow: >=20 > ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. Removal of > this setting requires the approval of both administrative and > technical contacts, with override only possible by the registrant > after the same period as above. >=20 > s/ after the same period as above./ after the same conditions as > specified in item i. above. >=20 > The Licensor shall arrange sufficient funds to ensure renewal is > successful. Notices of pending, successful, and failed renewals must > go to both technical and administrative contacts. >=20 > See Exhibit E attached with the markup. >=20 > Q2. Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements > section i, do we mean =E2=80=9Cno response=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cno = objection=E2=80=9D from the > current contacts? It is possible that any response (even simply > clarification) would inhibit update, and that may not be the desired > outcome. We would appreciate confirmation and are fine with either > outcome. >=20 > A2. We mean =E2=80=9CNo Response.=E2=80=9D Section i provides for = two scenarios. >=20 > The first is the situation where the approval of both the technical > contact and the administrative contact is needed to approve a change > to the technical contact information, that is, there is =E2=80=9CNo > Objection=E2=80=9D to the change. >=20 > The second is the situation where =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D was = received from > the administrative and technical contacts (or =E2=80=9CNo Objection=E2=80= =9D from > one and =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D from the other). In this = situation the > registrant (the Trust) can override the need for the parties to > approve and approve the change to the technical contact information. > There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to both > parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 business days have > passed. >=20 > Q3. Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between the > licensor and the registrar is only valid as long as the License > agreement is in force? >=20 > A3. The contract with the Registrar will not terminate merely as a > result of changing IANA service providers or the License Agreement >=20 > The Trust is entering into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the > purpose of it holding the IANA domains. >=20 > Exhibit E of the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the > CSC Agreement. >=20 > Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A are ICANN specific. >=20 > If ICANN is no longer the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License > Agreements will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new > provider(s). >=20 > If Exhibit E of the License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of > the Trust contract with the Registrar will be changed. >=20 > Of course the License Agreements will be changed in accordance with > the provisions of the Community Agreement. >=20 > Applicable Community Agreement provisions include: >=20 > Community Agreement Provisions >=20 > 3.2 Licenses to IANA Operators. >=20 > a. The IETF Trust shall license the IANA Intellectual > Property, including the use of associated domain names, to one or > more third party operators selected as described below (=E2=80=9CIANA > Operators=E2=80=9D) for use in connection with performing IANA = Services > under one or more written license agreements (=E2=80=9CLicense = Agreements=E2=80=9D). >=20 > e. Operational Community IANA Operator Request. >=20 > (i) Upon the request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust > will attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a > prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational Community=E2=80=99= s > designated IANA Service and based to the greatest extent possible on > the Initial License Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use > immediately prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii) The IETF > Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that the > License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed with the initial > IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, attached hereto as Exhibit > D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively (the =E2=80=9CInitial License = Agreements=E2=80=9D) is > acceptable to it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CCG mailing list > CCG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg From nobody Wed Apr 19 22:49:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596C3129450; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3BHqL8v9fwAP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E03A12EAFE; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from ) id 1d14xy-0002jo-Fo; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:49:20 +0200 Received: from sslvpn.ipv6.ripe.net ([2001:67c:2e8:9::c100:14e6] helo=[IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:5009::22]) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d14xy-0006wa-0O; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:49:18 +0200 From: Kaveh Ranjbar Message-Id: <927BD55F-F53F-4D95-BB78-FAE909FC78BD@ripe.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A665F6E-A4FC-43FE-B94D-4D9CC20160FF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:49:14 +0400 In-Reply-To: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> Cc: Trustees Trustees To: ccg@ietf.org References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ------- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -7.5 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-RIPE-Signature: 98103304a313f58a8eac8a386a982e5b4f69f657f2d10f3e20164922d7b6efdb Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:49:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7A665F6E-A4FC-43FE-B94D-4D9CC20160FF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F345ED2C-5923-4CC7-A4AF-9934816DD8F9" --Apple-Mail=_F345ED2C-5923-4CC7-A4AF-9934816DD8F9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 All; Thank you for your comments. The next step is that the Trust will publish the proposed modifications to Exhibit E for a two-week community review. (Exhibit E of the License Agreements: Domain Name Registrar Requirements) Unless there are suggestions otherwise, that notice will be sent to iana-ipr@nro.net and the IETF announce and = ietf lists. Please note the "Next Steps=E2=80=9D section in my original announcement sent out on 30th of March email (quoted below) and comment if you have suggestions. All the best, Kaveh Ranjbar Chair, IETF Trust > On 30 Mar 2017, at 20:27, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote: >=20 > All; >=20 > On 1st March the Trust sent proposed changes to the License > Agreements with ICANN to the CCG and requested feedback. >=20 > Below are the Trust responses to the questions that were raised. >=20 > We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG. >=20 > In addition, we believe these are the Next Steps necessary to > complete the transfer of the domains and we welcome your review > and comments on these as well. >=20 > Next Steps >=20 > a. Trust sends response to CCG questions > b. CCG reviews and comments > c. Upon acceptance, Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review > [Exhibit E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements] > d. Community Review > e. With no substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute > amendments to the three License Agreements > f. Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A > [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License Agreements] > g. Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC Agreement for Community = Review > h. Community Review > i. With no substantive changes, Trust executes CSC Agreement > j. Test of CSC conformance to the requirements > k. Assuming successful test, all IANA domains transferred to Trust >=20 > Again, we welcome your comments and suggestions. >=20 > Kaveh Ranjbar > Chair, IETF Trust >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > Responses to Questions Raised by CCG: >=20 > Q1: Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In > items iii and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as > above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. above". > However, in item ii, the words "after the same period as above=C2=B2 = have > not been changed. >=20 > Is the different approach in item ii deliberate? >=20 > A1. After review of ii in relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our > opinion that the same conditions should apply and have been = incorporated. >=20 > The specific change would be as follow: >=20 > ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. Removal of > this setting requires the approval of both administrative and > technical contacts, with override only possible by the registrant > after the same period as above. >=20 > s/ after the same period as above./ after the same conditions as > specified in item i. above. >=20 > The Licensor shall arrange sufficient funds to ensure renewal is > successful. Notices of pending, successful, and failed renewals must > go to both technical and administrative contacts. >=20 > See Exhibit E attached with the markup. >=20 > Q2. Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements > section i, do we mean =E2=80=9Cno response=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cno = objection=E2=80=9D from the > current contacts? It is possible that any response (even simply > clarification) would inhibit update, and that may not be the desired > outcome. We would appreciate confirmation and are fine with either > outcome. >=20 > A2. We mean =E2=80=9CNo Response.=E2=80=9D Section i provides for = two scenarios. >=20 > The first is the situation where the approval of both the technical > contact and the administrative contact is needed to approve a change > to the technical contact information, that is, there is =E2=80=9CNo > Objection=E2=80=9D to the change. >=20 > The second is the situation where =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D was = received from > the administrative and technical contacts (or =E2=80=9CNo Objection=E2=80= =9D from > one and =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D from the other). In this = situation the > registrant (the Trust) can override the need for the parties to > approve and approve the change to the technical contact information. > There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to both > parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 business days have > passed. >=20 > Q3. Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between the > licensor and the registrar is only valid as long as the License > agreement is in force? >=20 > A3. The contract with the Registrar will not terminate merely as a > result of changing IANA service providers or the License Agreement >=20 > The Trust is entering into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the > purpose of it holding the IANA domains. >=20 > Exhibit E of the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the > CSC Agreement. >=20 > Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A are ICANN specific. >=20 > If ICANN is no longer the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License > Agreements will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new > provider(s). >=20 > If Exhibit E of the License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of > the Trust contract with the Registrar will be changed. >=20 > Of course the License Agreements will be changed in accordance with > the provisions of the Community Agreement. >=20 > Applicable Community Agreement provisions include: >=20 > Community Agreement Provisions >=20 > 3.2 Licenses to IANA Operators. >=20 > a. The IETF Trust shall license the IANA Intellectual > Property, including the use of associated domain names, to one or > more third party operators selected as described below (=E2=80=9CIANA > Operators=E2=80=9D) for use in connection with performing IANA = Services > under one or more written license agreements (=E2=80=9CLicense = Agreements=E2=80=9D). >=20 > e. Operational Community IANA Operator Request. >=20 > (i) Upon the request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust > will attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a > prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational Community=E2=80=99= s > designated IANA Service and based to the greatest extent possible on > the Initial License Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use > immediately prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii) The IETF > Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that the > License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed with the initial > IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, attached hereto as Exhibit > D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively (the =E2=80=9CInitial License = Agreements=E2=80=9D) is > acceptable to it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --Apple-Mail=_F345ED2C-5923-4CC7-A4AF-9934816DD8F9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 All;

Thank you for your = comments.

The next step is that the Trust = will publish the proposed
modifications to Exhibit E for a = two-week community review. (Exhibit
E of the License = Agreements: Domain Name Registrar Requirements)

Unless there are suggestions otherwise, that notice will be = sent to
iana-ipr@nro.net and the IETF announce and ietf = lists.

Please note the "Next Steps=E2=80=9D = section in my original announcement 
sent out on = 30th of March email (quoted below) and comment if you 
have suggestions.

All the best,

Kaveh Ranjbar
Chair, IETF Trust

On 30 Mar 2017, at 20:27, = Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net> wrote:

All;

On 1st March the Trust sent = proposed changes to the License
Agreements with ICANN to = the CCG and requested feedback.

Below are = the Trust responses to the questions that were raised.

We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG.

In addition, we believe these are the Next = Steps necessary to
complete the transfer of the domains = and we welcome your review
and comments on these as = well.

Next Steps

a.  Trust sends response to CCG questions
b.=  CCG reviews and comments
c.  Upon acceptance, = Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review
[Exhibit = E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements]
d.  Community Review
e.  With no = substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute
= amendments to the three License Agreements
f. =  Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A
=   [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License = Agreements]
g.  Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC = Agreement for Community Review
h.  Community = Review
i.  With no substantive changes, Trust = executes CSC Agreement
j.  Test of CSC conformance to = the requirements
k.  Assuming successful test, all = IANA domains transferred to Trust

Again, we = welcome your comments and suggestions.

Kaveh = Ranjbar
Chair, IETF Trust

++++++++++++++++++++++
Responses to Questions = Raised by CCG:

Q1:  Referencing = Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In
items iii = and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as
above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. = above".
However, in item ii, the words "after the same = period as above=C2=B2 have
not been changed.

Is the different approach in item ii = deliberate?

A1.  After review of ii in = relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our
opinion that the = same conditions should apply and have been incorporated.
The specific change would be as follow:

ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. = Removal of
this setting requires the approval of both = administrative and
technical contacts, with override only = possible by the registrant
after the same period as = above.

s/ after the same period as above./ = after the same conditions as
specified in item i. = above.

The Licensor shall arrange = sufficient funds to ensure renewal is
successful. Notices = of pending, successful, and failed renewals must
go to = both technical and administrative contacts.

See Exhibit E attached with the markup.

Q2.  Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar = Requirements
section i, do we mean =E2=80=9Cno response=E2=80= =9D or =E2=80=9Cno objection=E2=80=9D from the
current = contacts? It is possible that any response (even simply
clarification) would inhibit update, and that may not be the = desired
outcome.  We would appreciate confirmation = and are fine with either
outcome.

A2.  We mean =E2=80=9CNo Response.=E2=80=9D =  Section i provides for two scenarios.

The first is the situation where the approval of both the = technical
contact and the administrative contact is needed = to approve a change
to the technical contact information, = that is, there is =E2=80=9CNo
Objection=E2=80=9D to the = change.

The second is the situation where = =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D was received from
the = administrative and technical contacts (or =E2=80=9CNo Objection=E2=80=9D = from
one and =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D from the = other).  In this situation the
registrant (the Trust) = can override the need for the parties to
approve and = approve the change to the technical contact information.
There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to = both
parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 = business days have
passed.

Q3. =   Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between = the
licensor and the registrar is only valid as long as = the License
agreement is in force?

A3.  The contract with the Registrar will not terminate = merely as a
result of changing IANA service providers or = the License Agreement

The Trust is entering = into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the
purpose of = it holding the IANA domains.

Exhibit E of = the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the
CSC = Agreement.

Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A = are ICANN specific.

If ICANN is no longer = the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License
Agreements = will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new
provider(s).

If Exhibit E of the = License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of
the Trust = contract with the Registrar will be changed.

Of course the License Agreements will be changed in = accordance with
the provisions of the Community = Agreement.

Applicable Community Agreement = provisions include:

Community Agreement = Provisions

3.2 =       Licenses to IANA Operators.

a. =         The IETF Trust shall = license the IANA Intellectual
Property, including the use = of associated domain names, to one or
more third party = operators selected as described below (=E2=80=9CIANA
Operators=E2=80=9D) for use in connection with performing = IANA Services
under one or more written license agreements = (=E2=80=9CLicense Agreements=E2=80=9D).

e. =         Operational Community = IANA Operator Request.

(i)  Upon the = request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust
will = attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a
prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational = Community=E2=80=99s
designated IANA Service and based to = the greatest extent possible on
the Initial License = Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use
immediately = prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii)  The IETF
Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that = the
License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed = with the initial
IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, = attached hereto as Exhibit
D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively = (the =E2=80=9CInitial License Agreements=E2=80=9D) is
acceptable to it.



<Exhibit E Domain = Name Registrar Requirements Markup = -01.pdf>

= --Apple-Mail=_F345ED2C-5923-4CC7-A4AF-9934816DD8F9-- --Apple-Mail=_7A665F6E-A4FC-43FE-B94D-4D9CC20160FF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJY+EvbAAoJED2u7S7KuESQbcQH/jvkdFLyqxnBHlCXGQ1sVBBY GQHcngvxZy+m4FXZD9qpxrNDf8OJwyAXmMm5oF5S8gCjsPcKuY9Q6JLx9oG3RzPv nXoivrLpGaQkzvHMyJNYumVa37vCXp/cMnXJY8vxfGF+9UE8FJ96GApP746engtm DZf+QkzbpPPhONP4gkdoQM7QETEpSH7g5+9YJpSKmO4El9s5g/uDpE+/e0UzrAWy HCW2DjroSIdJweQJCgbu456qR2BdFHgOPAsLnNlFsc/WyhlrEeklMSrHKvDBsJIp TqiZxk28lMWZrEBS+fVDF2bBL9Y+7mKqGnGsZCsXDZGTmH9YcF0Dzy+MLzjdP7Q= =BGqf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7A665F6E-A4FC-43FE-B94D-4D9CC20160FF-- From nobody Thu Apr 20 07:02:42 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D491294AB; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jZ7tBT8ZZoD; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.arin.net (smtp2.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:110:201::52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD230129552; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 3904A1DE3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (ashedge02.corp.arin.net [199.43.0.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp2.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15B213B; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) by ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (199.43.0.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:48 -0400 Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.62) by CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:29 -0400 Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6]) by CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:02:30 -0400 From: John Curran To: Russ Housley CC: "ccg@ietf.org" , IETF Trustees Thread-Topic: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements Thread-Index: AQHSqjB6o97oIZThYEKt8GensKjk86G/SHiAgA9jrQA= Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:29 +0000 Message-ID: <671FC8D8-6792-41E6-9CB7-2C17D6E3DB16@arin.net> References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.43.0.124] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <2CD9FB83255AC7419645124AAA176DFA@corp.arin.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:34 -0000 UnVzcyAtIA0KIA0KICAgIEkgaG9wZSBub3Q7IHJldmlldyBvZiB0aGUgY2hhbmdlcyB3YXMgZGVs YXllZCBidXQgaXMgbm93IHVuZGVyd2F5IG9uIGFuIGV4cGVkaXRlZCBiYXNpcy4NCg0KL0pvaG4N Cg0KPiBPbiAxMCBBcHIgMjAxNywgYXQgMzowMSBQTSwgUnVzcyBIb3VzbGV5IDxob3VzbGV5QHZp Z2lsc2VjLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0KPiBJIGhhdmUgbm90IHNlZW4gYW55b25lIHJhaXNlIGNv bmNlcm5zIHdpdGggdGhlIHdheSB0aGF0IHRoZSBJRVRGIFRydXN0IHJlc29sdmUgdGhlaXIgZWFy bGllciBjb21tZW50cy4gIElzIG1vcmUgdGltZSBuZWVkZWQgZm9yIGZ1cnRoZXIgcmV2aWV3Pw0K PiANCj4gUnVzcw0KPiANCj4gDQo+PiBPbiBNYXIgMzAsIDIwMTcsIGF0IDEyOjI3IFBNLCBLYXZl aCBSYW5qYmFyIDxrcmFuamJhckByaXBlLm5ldD4gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiANCj4+IEFsbDsNCj4+IA0K Pj4gT24gMXN0IE1hcmNoIHRoZSBUcnVzdCBzZW50IHByb3Bvc2VkIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gdGhlIExp Y2Vuc2UNCj4+IEFncmVlbWVudHMgd2l0aCBJQ0FOTiB0byB0aGUgQ0NHIGFuZCByZXF1ZXN0ZWQg ZmVlZGJhY2suDQo+PiANCj4+IEJlbG93IGFyZSB0aGUgVHJ1c3QgcmVzcG9uc2VzIHRvIHRoZSBx dWVzdGlvbnMgdGhhdCB3ZXJlIHJhaXNlZC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gV2UgaG9wZSB0aGVzZSBzYXRpc2Z5 IHRoZSBjb25jZXJucyBvZiB0aGUgQ0NHLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgd2UgYmVsaWV2 ZSB0aGVzZSBhcmUgdGhlIE5leHQgU3RlcHMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRvIA0KPj4gY29tcGxldGUgdGhl IHRyYW5zZmVyIG9mIHRoZSBkb21haW5zIGFuZCB3ZSB3ZWxjb21lIHlvdXIgcmV2aWV3IA0KPj4g YW5kIGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIHRoZXNlIGFzIHdlbGwuDQo+PiANCj4+IE5leHQgU3RlcHMNCj4+IA0K Pj4gYS4gIFRydXN0IHNlbmRzIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIENDRyBxdWVzdGlvbnMNCj4+IGIuICBDQ0cg cmV2aWV3cyBhbmQgY29tbWVudHMNCj4+IGMuICBVcG9uIGFjY2VwdGFuY2UsIFRydXN0IHB1Ymxp c2hlcyBFeGhpYml0IEUgZm9yIGNvbW11bml0eSByZXZpZXcgDQo+PiBbRXhoaWJpdCBFIHRvIExp Y2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50OiBEb21haW4gTmFtZSBSZWdpc3RyYXIgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzXQ0KPj4g ZC4gIENvbW11bml0eSBSZXZpZXcNCj4+IGUuICBXaXRoIG5vIHN1YnN0YW50aXZlIGNoYW5nZXMs IFRydXN0IGFuZCBJQ0FOTiBleGVjdXRlIA0KPj4gCWFtZW5kbWVudHMgdG8gdGhlIHRocmVlIExp Y2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50cw0KPj4gZi4gIENoYW5nZXMgaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGVkIGluIHRoZSBDU0Mg QWdyZWVtZW50IFNjaGVkdWxlIEENCj4+ICBbU2NoZWR1bGUgQSBpcyB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyBFeGhp Yml0IEUgb2YgdGhlIExpY2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50c10NCj4+IGcuICBUcnVzdCBwdWJsaXNoZXMg U2NoZWR1bGUgQSBvZiB0aGUgQ1NDIEFncmVlbWVudCBmb3IgQ29tbXVuaXR5IFJldmlldyANCj4+ IGguICBDb21tdW5pdHkgUmV2aWV3DQo+PiBpLiAgV2l0aCBubyBzdWJzdGFudGl2ZSBjaGFuZ2Vz LCBUcnVzdCBleGVjdXRlcyBDU0MgQWdyZWVtZW50DQo+PiBqLiAgVGVzdCBvZiBDU0MgY29uZm9y bWFuY2UgdG8gdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyANCj4+IGsuICBBc3N1bWluZyBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIHRl c3QsIGFsbCBJQU5BIGRvbWFpbnMgdHJhbnNmZXJyZWQgdG8gVHJ1c3QNCj4+IA0KPj4gQWdhaW4s IHdlIHdlbGNvbWUgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMuDQo+PiANCj4+IEthdmVo IFJhbmpiYXINCj4+IENoYWlyLCBJRVRGIFRydXN0DQo+PiANCj4+ICsrKysrKysrKysrKysrKysr KysrKysNCj4+IFJlc3BvbnNlcyB0byBRdWVzdGlvbnMgUmFpc2VkIGJ5IENDRzoNCj4+IA0KPj4g UTE6ICBSZWZlcmVuY2luZyBFeGhpYml0IEUgRG9tYWluIE5hbWUgUmVnaXN0cmFyIFJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cyBJbg0KPj4gaXRlbXMgaWlpIGFuZCBpdiwgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBjaGFuZ2UgZnJvbSAiYWZ0 ZXIgdGhlIHNhbWUgcGVyaW9kIGFzDQo+PiBhYm92ZSIgdG8gImFmdGVyIHRoZSBzYW1lIGNvbmRp dGlvbnMgYXMgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIGl0ZW0gaS4gYWJvdmUiLg0KPj4gSG93ZXZlciwgaW4gaXRl bSBpaSwgdGhlIHdvcmRzICJhZnRlciB0aGUgc2FtZSBwZXJpb2QgYXMgYWJvdmXCsiBoYXZlDQo+ PiBub3QgYmVlbiBjaGFuZ2VkLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBJcyB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGFwcHJvYWNoIGlu IGl0ZW0gaWkgZGVsaWJlcmF0ZT8NCj4+IA0KPj4gQTEuICBBZnRlciByZXZpZXcgb2YgaWkgaW4g cmVsYXRpb24gdG8gaSwgaWlpLCBhbmQgaXYsIGl0IGlzIG91cg0KPj4gb3BpbmlvbiB0aGF0IHRo ZSBzYW1lIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgc2hvdWxkIGFwcGx5IGFuZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGVk Lg0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGUgc3BlY2lmaWMgY2hhbmdlIHdvdWxkIGJlIGFzIGZvbGxvdzoNCj4+IA0K Pj4gaWkuIFRoZSBuYW1lIG11c3QgYmUgY29uZmlndXJlZCB0byByZW5ldyBhdXRvbWF0aWNhbGx5 LiBSZW1vdmFsIG9mDQo+PiB0aGlzIHNldHRpbmcgcmVxdWlyZXMgdGhlIGFwcHJvdmFsIG9mIGJv dGggYWRtaW5pc3RyYXRpdmUgYW5kDQo+PiB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29udGFjdHMsIHdpdGggb3ZlcnJp ZGUgb25seSBwb3NzaWJsZSBieSB0aGUgcmVnaXN0cmFudA0KPj4gYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIHNhbWUgcGVy aW9kIGFzIGFib3ZlLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBzLyBhZnRlciB0aGUgc2FtZSBwZXJpb2QgYXMgYWJvdmUu LyBhZnRlciB0aGUgc2FtZSBjb25kaXRpb25zIGFzDQo+PiBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gaXRlbSBpLiBh Ym92ZS4NCj4+IA0KPj4gVGhlIExpY2Vuc29yIHNoYWxsIGFycmFuZ2Ugc3VmZmljaWVudCBmdW5k cyB0byBlbnN1cmUgcmVuZXdhbCBpcw0KPj4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bC4gTm90aWNlcyBvZiBwZW5kaW5n LCBzdWNjZXNzZnVsLCBhbmQgZmFpbGVkIHJlbmV3YWxzIG11c3QNCj4+IGdvIHRvIGJvdGggdGVj aG5pY2FsIGFuZCBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdGl2ZSBjb250YWN0cy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gU2VlIEV4aGliaXQg RSBhdHRhY2hlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBtYXJrdXAuDQo+PiANCj4+IFEyLiAgUmVmZXJlbmNpbmcgRXho aWJpdCBFIERvbWFpbiBOYW1lIFJlZ2lzdHJhciBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMNCj4+IHNlY3Rpb24gaSwg ZG8gd2UgbWVhbiDigJxubyByZXNwb25zZeKAnSBvciDigJxubyBvYmplY3Rpb27igJ0gZnJvbSB0 aGUNCj4+IGN1cnJlbnQgY29udGFjdHM/IEl0IGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoYXQgYW55IHJlc3BvbnNl IChldmVuIHNpbXBseQ0KPj4gY2xhcmlmaWNhdGlvbikgd291bGQgaW5oaWJpdCB1cGRhdGUsIGFu ZCB0aGF0IG1heSBub3QgYmUgdGhlIGRlc2lyZWQNCj4+IG91dGNvbWUuICBXZSB3b3VsZCBhcHBy ZWNpYXRlIGNvbmZpcm1hdGlvbiBhbmQgYXJlIGZpbmUgd2l0aCBlaXRoZXINCj4+IG91dGNvbWUu DQo+PiANCj4+IEEyLiAgV2UgbWVhbiDigJxObyBSZXNwb25zZS7igJ0gIFNlY3Rpb24gaSBwcm92 aWRlcyBmb3IgdHdvIHNjZW5hcmlvcy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gVGhlIGZpcnN0IGlzIHRoZSBzaXR1YXRp b24gd2hlcmUgdGhlIGFwcHJvdmFsIG9mIGJvdGggdGhlIHRlY2huaWNhbA0KPj4gY29udGFjdCBh bmQgdGhlIGFkbWluaXN0cmF0aXZlIGNvbnRhY3QgaXMgbmVlZGVkIHRvIGFwcHJvdmUgYSBjaGFu Z2UNCj4+IHRvIHRoZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29udGFjdCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgdGhhdCBpcywgdGhl cmUgaXMg4oCcTm8NCj4+IE9iamVjdGlvbuKAnSB0byB0aGUgY2hhbmdlLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGUg c2Vjb25kIGlzIHRoZSBzaXR1YXRpb24gd2hlcmUg4oCcTm8gUmVzcG9uc2XigJ0gd2FzIHJlY2Vp dmVkIGZyb20NCj4+IHRoZSBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdGl2ZSBhbmQgdGVjaG5pY2FsIGNvbnRhY3RzIChv ciDigJxObyBPYmplY3Rpb27igJ0gZnJvbQ0KPj4gb25lIGFuZCDigJxObyBSZXNwb25zZeKAnSBm cm9tIHRoZSBvdGhlcikuICBJbiB0aGlzIHNpdHVhdGlvbiB0aGUNCj4+IHJlZ2lzdHJhbnQgKHRo ZSBUcnVzdCkgY2FuIG92ZXJyaWRlIHRoZSBuZWVkIGZvciB0aGUgcGFydGllcyB0bw0KPj4gYXBw cm92ZSBhbmQgYXBwcm92ZSB0aGUgY2hhbmdlIHRvIHRoZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgY29udGFjdCBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbi4NCj4+IFRoZXJlIG11c3QgYmUgZXZpZGVuY2UgdGhhdCBub3RpY2Ugb2YgY2hhbmdl IHdhcyBwcm92aWRlZCB0byBib3RoDQo+PiBwYXJ0aWVzIGFuZCBzdWNoIGFjdGlvbiBjYW5ub3Qg YmUgdGFrZW4gdW5sZXNzIDEwIGJ1c2luZXNzIGRheXMgaGF2ZQ0KPj4gcGFzc2VkLg0KPj4gDQo+ PiBRMy4gICBDYW4gd2UgYWxzbyBvYnRhaW4gY29uZmlybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFncmVlbWVu dCBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZQ0KPj4gbGljZW5zb3IgYW5kIHRoZSByZWdpc3RyYXIgaXMgb25seSB2YWxp ZCBhcyBsb25nIGFzIHRoZSBMaWNlbnNlDQo+PiBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgaXMgaW4gZm9yY2U/DQo+PiAN Cj4+IEEzLiAgVGhlIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdpdGggdGhlIFJlZ2lzdHJhciB3aWxsIG5vdCB0ZXJtaW5h dGUgbWVyZWx5IGFzIGENCj4+IHJlc3VsdCBvZiBjaGFuZ2luZyBJQU5BIHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlk ZXJzIG9yIHRoZSBMaWNlbnNlIEFncmVlbWVudA0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGUgVHJ1c3QgaXMgZW50ZXJp bmcgaW50byBhIGNvbnRyYWN0IHdpdGggQ1NDIGFzIFJlZ2lzdHJhciBmb3IgdGhlDQo+PiBwdXJw b3NlIG9mIGl0IGhvbGRpbmcgdGhlIElBTkEgZG9tYWlucy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gRXhoaWJpdCBFIG9m IHRoZSBMaWNlbnNlIEFncmVlbWVudHMgaXMgU2NoZWR1bGUgQSBzZWN0aW9uIDcgb2YgdGhlDQo+ PiBDU0MgQWdyZWVtZW50Lg0KPj4gDQo+PiBOZWl0aGVyIEV4aGliaXQgRSBub3IgU2NoZWR1bGUg QSBhcmUgSUNBTk4gc3BlY2lmaWMuDQo+PiANCj4+IElmIElDQU5OIGlzIG5vIGxvbmdlciB0aGUg SUFOQSBTZXJ2aWNlIFByb3ZpZGVyIHRocm91Z2ggUFRJLCBMaWNlbnNlDQo+PiBBZ3JlZW1lbnRz IHdpbGwgdGhlbiBiZSBuZWdvdGlhdGVkIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIFRydXN0IGFuZCB0aGUgbmV3DQo+ PiBwcm92aWRlcihzKS4NCj4+IA0KPj4gSWYgRXhoaWJpdCBFIG9mIHRoZSBMaWNlbnNlIEFncmVl bWVudCBjaGFuZ2VzLCB0aGVuIFNjaGVkdWxlIEEgb2YNCj4+IHRoZSBUcnVzdCBjb250cmFjdCB3 aXRoIHRoZSBSZWdpc3RyYXIgd2lsbCBiZSBjaGFuZ2VkLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UgdGhl IExpY2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50cyB3aWxsIGJlIGNoYW5nZWQgaW4gYWNjb3JkYW5jZSB3aXRoDQo+ PiB0aGUgcHJvdmlzaW9ucyBvZiB0aGUgQ29tbXVuaXR5IEFncmVlbWVudC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gQXBw bGljYWJsZSBDb21tdW5pdHkgQWdyZWVtZW50IHByb3Zpc2lvbnMgaW5jbHVkZToNCj4+IA0KPj4g Q29tbXVuaXR5IEFncmVlbWVudCBQcm92aXNpb25zDQo+PiANCj4+IDMuMiAgICAgICBMaWNlbnNl cyB0byBJQU5BIE9wZXJhdG9ycy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gYS4gICAgICAgICBUaGUgSUVURiBUcnVzdCBz aGFsbCBsaWNlbnNlIHRoZSBJQU5BIEludGVsbGVjdHVhbA0KPj4gUHJvcGVydHksIGluY2x1ZGlu ZyB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgZG9tYWluIG5hbWVzLCB0byBvbmUgb3INCj4+IG1vcmUg dGhpcmQgcGFydHkgb3BlcmF0b3JzIHNlbGVjdGVkIGFzIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBiZWxvdyAo4oCcSUFO QQ0KPj4gT3BlcmF0b3Jz4oCdKSBmb3IgdXNlIGluIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gd2l0aCBwZXJmb3JtaW5n IElBTkEgU2VydmljZXMNCj4+IHVuZGVyIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIHdyaXR0ZW4gbGljZW5zZSBhZ3Jl ZW1lbnRzICjigJxMaWNlbnNlIEFncmVlbWVudHPigJ0pLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBlLiAgICAgICAgIE9w ZXJhdGlvbmFsIENvbW11bml0eSBJQU5BIE9wZXJhdG9yIFJlcXVlc3QuDQo+PiANCj4+IChpKSAg VXBvbiB0aGUgcmVxdWVzdCBvZiBhbiBPcGVyYXRpb25hbCBDb21tdW5pdHksIHRoZSBJRVRGIFRy dXN0DQo+PiB3aWxsIGF0dGVtcHQgaW4gZ29vZCBmYWl0aCB0byBuZWdvdGlhdGUgYSBMaWNlbnNl IEFncmVlbWVudCB3aXRoIGENCj4+IHByb3NwZWN0aXZlIElBTkEgT3BlcmF0b3IgcmVsYXRpbmcg dG8gdGhlIE9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIENvbW11bml0eeKAmXMNCj4+IGRlc2lnbmF0ZWQgSUFOQSBTZXJ2 aWNlIGFuZCBiYXNlZCB0byB0aGUgZ3JlYXRlc3QgZXh0ZW50IHBvc3NpYmxlIG9uDQo+PiB0aGUg SW5pdGlhbCBMaWNlbnNlIEFncmVlbWVudChzKSAob3IgdGhlIExpY2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50IGlu IHVzZQ0KPj4gaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgcHJpb3IgdG8gc3VjaCBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbiwgaWYgZGlmZmVy ZW50KS4gKGlpKSAgVGhlIElFVEYNCj4+IFRydXN0IGFuZCBlYWNoIE9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIENvbW11 bml0eSBoZXJlYnkgYWNrbm93bGVkZ2UgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4+IExpY2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50IHRo YXQgdGhlIElFVEYgVHJ1c3QgaGFzIGV4ZWN1dGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIGluaXRpYWwNCj4+IElBTkEg T3BlcmF0b3IgYXMgb2YgdGhlIEVmZmVjdGl2ZSBEYXRlLCBhdHRhY2hlZCBoZXJldG8gYXMgRXho aWJpdA0KPj4gRC0xLCBELTIgb3IgRC0zLCByZXNwZWN0aXZlbHkgKHRoZSDigJxJbml0aWFsIExp Y2Vuc2UgQWdyZWVtZW50c+KAnSkgaXMNCj4+IGFjY2VwdGFibGUgdG8gaXQuDQo+PiANCj4+IA0K Pj4gDQo+PiA8RXhoaWJpdCBFIERvbWFpbiBOYW1lIFJlZ2lzdHJhciBSZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgTWFy a3VwIC0wMS5wZGY+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X18NCj4+IENDRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+IENDR0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9jY2cNCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IENDRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gQ0NHQGll dGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vY2NnDQoNCg== From nobody Mon Apr 24 06:57:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41C9C126DEE; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:57:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xSZkKtWU-qo; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.arin.net (smtp1.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:110:201::51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13456129459; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 06:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id 914B23F9C; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ashedge01.corp.arin.net (ashedge01.corp.arin.net [199.43.0.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp1.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5073EA0; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) by ashedge01.corp.arin.net (199.43.0.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:57:03 -0400 Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.62) by CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:57:00 -0400 Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6]) by CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:57:01 -0400 From: John Curran To: Kaveh Ranjbar CC: "ccg@ietf.org" , Trustees Trustees , "chair@nro.net" Thread-Topic: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements Thread-Index: AQHSqjB6o97oIZThYEKt8GensKjk86HOIlsAgAbRmIA= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:57:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6B862021-DEB0-4847-9474-DC093210C223@ripe.net> <927BD55F-F53F-4D95-BB78-FAE909FC78BD@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <927BD55F-F53F-4D95-BB78-FAE909FC78BD@ripe.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [199.43.0.124] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CB8C4C41-E524-4DE7-8BF7-55592158732E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CCG] Responses to the questions raised re: Proposed Changes to License Agreements X-BeenThere: ccg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA IPR Community Coordination Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:57:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CB8C4C41-E524-4DE7-8BF7-55592158732E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EE140860-8C57-4CA2-AF84-5A2CB5C53816" --Apple-Mail=_EE140860-8C57-4CA2-AF84-5A2CB5C53816 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Kaveh - The Number Resource Organization has reviewed the proposed modifications = and find that they address our early concerns. We are in agreement with = the proposed next steps and thank everyone for their efforts on these agreements. Best wishes, /John John Curran Chair, NRO > On 20 Apr 2017, at 12:49 AM, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote: >=20 > All; >=20 > Thank you for your comments. >=20 > The next step is that the Trust will publish the proposed > modifications to Exhibit E for a two-week community review. (Exhibit > E of the License Agreements: Domain Name Registrar Requirements) >=20 > Unless there are suggestions otherwise, that notice will be sent to > iana-ipr@nro.net and the IETF announce and = ietf lists. >=20 > Please note the "Next Steps=E2=80=9D section in my original = announcement > sent out on 30th of March email (quoted below) and comment if you > have suggestions. >=20 > All the best, >=20 > Kaveh Ranjbar > Chair, IETF Trust >=20 >> On 30 Mar 2017, at 20:27, Kaveh Ranjbar > wrote: >>=20 >> All; >>=20 >> On 1st March the Trust sent proposed changes to the License >> Agreements with ICANN to the CCG and requested feedback. >>=20 >> Below are the Trust responses to the questions that were raised. >>=20 >> We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG. >>=20 >> In addition, we believe these are the Next Steps necessary to >> complete the transfer of the domains and we welcome your review >> and comments on these as well. >>=20 >> Next Steps >>=20 >> a. Trust sends response to CCG questions >> b. CCG reviews and comments >> c. Upon acceptance, Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review >> [Exhibit E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements] >> d. Community Review >> e. With no substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute >> amendments to the three License Agreements >> f. Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A >> [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License Agreements] >> g. Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC Agreement for Community = Review >> h. Community Review >> i. With no substantive changes, Trust executes CSC Agreement >> j. Test of CSC conformance to the requirements >> k. Assuming successful test, all IANA domains transferred to Trust >>=20 >> Again, we welcome your comments and suggestions. >>=20 >> Kaveh Ranjbar >> Chair, IETF Trust >>=20 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Responses to Questions Raised by CCG: >>=20 >> Q1: Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In >> items iii and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as >> above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. above". >> However, in item ii, the words "after the same period as above=C2=B2 = have >> not been changed. >>=20 >> Is the different approach in item ii deliberate? >>=20 >> A1. After review of ii in relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our >> opinion that the same conditions should apply and have been = incorporated. >>=20 >> The specific change would be as follow: >>=20 >> ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. Removal of >> this setting requires the approval of both administrative and >> technical contacts, with override only possible by the registrant >> after the same period as above. >>=20 >> s/ after the same period as above./ after the same conditions as >> specified in item i. above. >>=20 >> The Licensor shall arrange sufficient funds to ensure renewal is >> successful. Notices of pending, successful, and failed renewals must >> go to both technical and administrative contacts. >>=20 >> See Exhibit E attached with the markup. >>=20 >> Q2. Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements >> section i, do we mean =E2=80=9Cno response=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cno = objection=E2=80=9D from the >> current contacts? It is possible that any response (even simply >> clarification) would inhibit update, and that may not be the desired >> outcome. We would appreciate confirmation and are fine with either >> outcome. >>=20 >> A2. We mean =E2=80=9CNo Response.=E2=80=9D Section i provides for = two scenarios. >>=20 >> The first is the situation where the approval of both the technical >> contact and the administrative contact is needed to approve a change >> to the technical contact information, that is, there is =E2=80=9CNo >> Objection=E2=80=9D to the change. >>=20 >> The second is the situation where =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D was = received from >> the administrative and technical contacts (or =E2=80=9CNo = Objection=E2=80=9D from >> one and =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D from the other). In this = situation the >> registrant (the Trust) can override the need for the parties to >> approve and approve the change to the technical contact information. >> There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to both >> parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 business days have >> passed. >>=20 >> Q3. Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between the >> licensor and the registrar is only valid as long as the License >> agreement is in force? >>=20 >> A3. The contract with the Registrar will not terminate merely as a >> result of changing IANA service providers or the License Agreement >>=20 >> The Trust is entering into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the >> purpose of it holding the IANA domains. >>=20 >> Exhibit E of the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the >> CSC Agreement. >>=20 >> Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A are ICANN specific. >>=20 >> If ICANN is no longer the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License >> Agreements will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new >> provider(s). >>=20 >> If Exhibit E of the License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of >> the Trust contract with the Registrar will be changed. >>=20 >> Of course the License Agreements will be changed in accordance with >> the provisions of the Community Agreement. >>=20 >> Applicable Community Agreement provisions include: >>=20 >> Community Agreement Provisions >>=20 >> 3.2 Licenses to IANA Operators. >>=20 >> a. The IETF Trust shall license the IANA Intellectual >> Property, including the use of associated domain names, to one or >> more third party operators selected as described below (=E2=80=9CIANA >> Operators=E2=80=9D) for use in connection with performing IANA = Services >> under one or more written license agreements (=E2=80=9CLicense = Agreements=E2=80=9D). >>=20 >> e. Operational Community IANA Operator Request. >>=20 >> (i) Upon the request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust >> will attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a >> prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational Community=E2=80=99= s >> designated IANA Service and based to the greatest extent possible on >> the Initial License Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use >> immediately prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii) The IETF >> Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that the >> License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed with the initial >> IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, attached hereto as Exhibit >> D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively (the =E2=80=9CInitial License = Agreements=E2=80=9D) is >> acceptable to it. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CCG mailing list > CCG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg --Apple-Mail=_EE140860-8C57-4CA2-AF84-5A2CB5C53816 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Kaveh - 

The Number Resource Organization has reviewed the proposed = modifications and 
find that they address our early = concerns.   We are in agreement with the proposed 
next steps and thank everyone for their efforts on these = agreements.

Best = wishes,
/John

John Curran
Chair, = NRO

On 20 Apr 2017, at 12:49 AM, = Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net> wrote:

All;

Thank you for your comments.

The next step is that the Trust will publish the proposed
modifications to Exhibit E for a two-week community review. = (Exhibit
E of the License Agreements: Domain Name = Registrar Requirements)

Unless there are = suggestions otherwise, that notice will be sent to
iana-ipr@nro.net and = the IETF announce and ietf lists.

Please = note the "Next Steps=E2=80=9D section in my original = announcement 
sent out on 30th of March email = (quoted below) and comment if you 
have = suggestions.

All the = best,

Kaveh Ranjbar
Chair, = IETF Trust

On 30 Mar 2017, at 20:27, Kaveh = Ranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net> wrote:

All;

On 1st March the Trust sent = proposed changes to the License
Agreements with ICANN to = the CCG and requested feedback.

Below are = the Trust responses to the questions that were raised.

We hope these satisfy the concerns of the CCG.

In addition, we believe these are the Next = Steps necessary to
complete the transfer of the domains = and we welcome your review
and comments on these as = well.

Next Steps

a.  Trust sends response to CCG questions
b.=  CCG reviews and comments
c.  Upon acceptance, = Trust publishes Exhibit E for community review
[Exhibit = E to License Agreement: Domain Name Registrar Requirements]
d.  Community Review
e.  With no = substantive changes, Trust and ICANN execute
= amendments to the three License Agreements
f. =  Changes incorporated in the CSC Agreement Schedule A
=   [Schedule A is the same as Exhibit E of the License = Agreements]
g.  Trust publishes Schedule A of the CSC = Agreement for Community Review
h.  Community = Review
i.  With no substantive changes, Trust = executes CSC Agreement
j.  Test of CSC conformance to = the requirements
k.  Assuming successful test, all = IANA domains transferred to Trust

Again, we = welcome your comments and suggestions.

Kaveh = Ranjbar
Chair, IETF Trust

++++++++++++++++++++++
Responses to Questions = Raised by CCG:

Q1:  Referencing = Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar Requirements In
items iii = and iv, there is a change from "after the same period as
above" to "after the same conditions as specified in item i. = above".
However, in item ii, the words "after the same = period as above=C2=B2 have
not been changed.

Is the different approach in item ii = deliberate?

A1.  After review of ii in = relation to i, iii, and iv, it is our
opinion that the = same conditions should apply and have been incorporated.
The specific change would be as follow:

ii. The name must be configured to renew automatically. = Removal of
this setting requires the approval of both = administrative and
technical contacts, with override only = possible by the registrant
after the same period as = above.

s/ after the same period as above./ = after the same conditions as
specified in item i. = above.

The Licensor shall arrange = sufficient funds to ensure renewal is
successful. Notices = of pending, successful, and failed renewals must
go to = both technical and administrative contacts.

See Exhibit E attached with the markup.

Q2.  Referencing Exhibit E Domain Name Registrar = Requirements
section i, do we mean =E2=80=9Cno response=E2=80= =9D or =E2=80=9Cno objection=E2=80=9D from the
current = contacts? It is possible that any response (even simply
clarification) would inhibit update, and that may not be the = desired
outcome.  We would appreciate confirmation = and are fine with either
outcome.

A2.  We mean =E2=80=9CNo Response.=E2=80=9D =  Section i provides for two scenarios.

The first is the situation where the approval of both the = technical
contact and the administrative contact is needed = to approve a change
to the technical contact information, = that is, there is =E2=80=9CNo
Objection=E2=80=9D to the = change.

The second is the situation where = =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D was received from
the = administrative and technical contacts (or =E2=80=9CNo Objection=E2=80=9D = from
one and =E2=80=9CNo Response=E2=80=9D from the = other).  In this situation the
registrant (the Trust) = can override the need for the parties to
approve and = approve the change to the technical contact information.
There must be evidence that notice of change was provided to = both
parties and such action cannot be taken unless 10 = business days have
passed.

Q3. =   Can we also obtain confirmation that the agreement between = the
licensor and the registrar is only valid as long as = the License
agreement is in force?

A3.  The contract with the Registrar will not terminate = merely as a
result of changing IANA service providers or = the License Agreement

The Trust is entering = into a contract with CSC as Registrar for the
purpose of = it holding the IANA domains.

Exhibit E of = the License Agreements is Schedule A section 7 of the
CSC = Agreement.

Neither Exhibit E nor Schedule A = are ICANN specific.

If ICANN is no longer = the IANA Service Provider through PTI, License
Agreements = will then be negotiated between the Trust and the new
provider(s).

If Exhibit E of the = License Agreement changes, then Schedule A of
the Trust = contract with the Registrar will be changed.

Of course the License Agreements will be changed in = accordance with
the provisions of the Community = Agreement.

Applicable Community Agreement = provisions include:

Community Agreement = Provisions

3.2 =       Licenses to IANA Operators.

a. =         The IETF Trust shall = license the IANA Intellectual
Property, including the use = of associated domain names, to one or
more third party = operators selected as described below (=E2=80=9CIANA
Operators=E2=80=9D) for use in connection with performing = IANA Services
under one or more written license agreements = (=E2=80=9CLicense Agreements=E2=80=9D).

e. =         Operational Community = IANA Operator Request.

(i)  Upon the = request of an Operational Community, the IETF Trust
will = attempt in good faith to negotiate a License Agreement with a
prospective IANA Operator relating to the Operational = Community=E2=80=99s
designated IANA Service and based to = the greatest extent possible on
the Initial License = Agreement(s) (or the License Agreement in use
immediately = prior to such negotiation, if different). (ii)  The IETF
Trust and each Operational Community hereby acknowledge that = the
License Agreement that the IETF Trust has executed = with the initial
IANA Operator as of the Effective Date, = attached hereto as Exhibit
D-1, D-2 or D-3, respectively = (the =E2=80=9CInitial License Agreements=E2=80=9D) is
acceptable to it.



<Exhibit E = Domain Name Registrar Requirements Markup = -01.pdf>

_______________________________________= ________
CCG mailing list
CCG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccg

= --Apple-Mail=_EE140860-8C57-4CA2-AF84-5A2CB5C53816-- --Apple-Mail=_CB8C4C41-E524-4DE7-8BF7-55592158732E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJY/gQqAAoJEPGPWqAa+oF+eFQP/32fFo2FaEehecgE8ueAtb7V b2CtnbE604QtDTkLhQRS2mJEV5T2wn+F2RYioei8rOysMSaEUvIJ4OT1Px9WFHFX 0+/N+08E9RZ0U6/iy2mEPM2i5kimAhEHjANO4p41YlwVajZBCpUoc6A+8GsFrIgX Rul16wBaQNblRLin+mutOOGrC+39+1Um1Po9nOdfCC535jmsAu3kH6GQNT1I3v4t AvVPQP5OzE7FC7zVBdRF91XFTur4r7cu6czKgbNwmGH40J4V8TUDdwyakEVmGOGb IsTb1/dwHvDcOrZidX0i7nGu+nEK8++Kni5K3IsNPfBmLj8D7NLnuljpTTCB8+jR iJzwMNjQudgPdxPm67VlMfl/fM9VI+YUqnVs8nKmSeCyGsFdZYuCTFogHQfBZfhy Jb3Q2kbyqRcgMnFlt4iNCyHqu2ACfJLYkHAnAiGaDQZjGcPFDcVGoLj/gxEHB0iE d1r9wywKYeVfcFmcuoW/fTsAXSy6JFTiSRjIXNgNFpe0MnrMYIJFhB8i2+dDEcv0 +tVeYDCrjFKf5hISYRMYHir1VkFqXbdQbueL3n6300q7b2A+Tq1b/adfRee0o5ml tNCM6tSkZYlF+8RLuLI6v1f1xvWbTw9GfKPSQ2Qn+Pyj7EvcqTq5ue/4cr01mfqC 89vZeELq69ttwqqXfPSL =I1dO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_CB8C4C41-E524-4DE7-8BF7-55592158732E--