[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Izumi Okutani]

Mwenda, 


Excellent suggestion. I have received a request from the CWG Chairs to start coordination on this, which I will share in the next e-mail.

To expand, I'd also like to suggest that:

 * Share the CRISP Team observation on Sidley's memo and share on the ianaxfer list as well as to the CWG (through the CWG Chairs perhaps)
   Target: next week

 * State the above plan in the next 12 hours
   We are frequently refered in the CWG discussions and we should give clarify about our plan/position

Please start sharing your observations per Scenario before the CRISP Team call next week.

 1. ICANN Maintains Ownership of IANA IPR (Scenario 1)
 2. PTI Becomes the Registered Owner of the IANA IPR (Scenario 2)
 3. An Independent Trust Becomes the Registered Owner of the IANA IPR (Scenario 3)

It's good to see the discussions have started on Scenario 2.


German, as requested before, please confirm if we could arrange the CRISP Team call next week.
The suggested dates are Wed 12th or Thu 13th.

Would be great if you could set a doodle to see team's availabilities but if there is not time, whichever date that works for you and the NRO Secretariat is fine.



Izumi


On 2015/08/07 17:46, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> Thanks Andrei,
> 
> On 7 August 2015 at 10:33, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>
> My Understanding has always been since it is envisaged NTIA will transfer
> the contractual responsibility of the IANA function to  ICANN, the
> numbering community will sign the SLA with ICANN. It is ICANN which will
> have been granted fiduciary responsibility over the IANA functions by NTIA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> 
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>