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

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

Thanks Izumi,

It would be great for members to share their views through the list to make
the call easier :)

Here is another issues I think we should discuss regarding scenario 3.

The issue of policing the IPR if it is transferred from the IFO to IETF
Trust. We may need to develop a framework on how we may want the policing
to be done as outlined here by Sidley ... How To maintain accountability by
the trust and to ensure it properly maintains the IANA IPR ...

"Regardless of whether the IETF Trust is selected, or a new trust is
created, the trust documents will need to be amended (in the case of the
IETF Trust), or drafted (in the case of a new trust), to reflect the duties
and responsibilities of the trustees with respect to the IANA IPR, and
their handling of the IANA IPR under certain circumstances such as a
transfer of the IANA functions operator responsibilities away from PTI. To
maintain accountability by the trust and to ensure it properly maintains
the IANA IPR, additional contracts with accountability mechanisms may be
needed. Such mechanisms may include community oversight or involvement.
Further, the trust documentation would need to provide for the immediate
transfer of title away from the trust, if the trustee breaches its duties
with respect to the IANA IPR. These will be very important commitments from
the trust to the multistakeholder community, and will need to be clear that
the trustees will take direction from ICANN, acting as the voice of the
that community.

______________________
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


On 7 August 2015 at 12:17, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150807/993cefbf/attachment.html>