[CRISP-TEAM] IPR requirements in the IETF response

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Colleagues,

As I mentioned on the call, the IETF in its response focused on the
desired outcome in case a transition to another operator of the IANA
function happens - uninterrupted service and minimum confusion.

Here is the specific text in the response
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response):

>    "However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements
>    may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations
>    are met.  Those expectations are the following:
> 
>    o  The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain.  It
>       is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties
>       acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
> 
>    o  It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol
>       parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent
>       operator(s).  It is the preference of the IETF community that, as
>       part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry
>       out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the
>       current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA
>       [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent
>       operator(s), should the need arise.  Furthermore, in the event of
>       a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that
>       ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to
>       minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries
>       or other resources currently located at iana.org.


Regarding the last point, the global number resource registries (like
IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml>)
are being accessed by various communities (for building routing filters,
for instance) through the iana.org domain and we should probably
describe this dependency in our response, too.

As the response also mentions,

> "several suggestions were raised that did not enjoy sufficient support to be included.  Specifically:
> 
>    o  A suggestion for a stronger statement over what terms the IAOC
>       should negotiate.
> 
>    o  A suggestion that "iana.org" and other associated marks be
>       transferred to the IETF trust."


Regards,

Andrei