[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo
robachevsky at isoc.org
Fri Aug 7 09:33:50 CEST 2015
Mwendwa Kivuva wrote on 07/08/15 09:19:
> Hi Izumi, CRISP Team,
> We many need to debate this statement from Sidley to see if it is
> consistent with our proposal as Sidley claims. We might be asked to give
> our views on them,so better we be prepared.. "housing the IANA IPR with
> ICANN would be consistent with the Internet Number Community’s
> separation recommendation "
Fully agree, we need to be prepared.
> " Per the CWG Final Proposal, PTI will be the IANA functions operator.
> The Internet Number Community, through CRISP, has recommended that
> ownership of the IANA IPR not be held by the IANA functions operator in
> order to facilitate a smooth transition should another operator be
> selected in the future and to ensure that these assets are used in a
> non-discriminatory way. Therefore, housing the IANA IPR with ICANN would
> be consistent with the Internet Number Community’s separation
> recommendation (albeit not with their specifically-recommended form of
> an independent trust as discussed in Scenario 3 below)."
> My initial assessment would be how "separate" is PTI from ICANN? How
> much control does ICANN have over PTI?
Good question. I was told - very limited control, but I guess it depends
on the scenario one is considering.
My take on this - as long as the RIRs contract ICANN for the IANA
numbering services, ICANN is the IFO, and Sidley's first scenario is
inconsistent with the CRISP team proposal.
If, on the other hand, the contract is with the PTI, and indeed
sufficient separation can be ensured, this may work.
I also think that despite who holds the IPR, the evil is in the details
of the licensing agreement that should ensure that in the case of
separation the IPRs are gracefully handed over/licensed to whoever is
chosen as a new IANA numbering services operator.
I'd really like to see a draft of such agreement!
More information about the CRISP