Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Aug 7 11:59:07 CEST 2015


This is what I have communicated to the CWG Chairs. IANAPLAN and ICG Chairs are in this e-mail thread as well.
I had suggested earlier to include Alan and Paul Wilson in the dialogue as ICG reps from NRO.

Nurani and I believe this call should not be a negotiation call about the contents of the proposal.
I'd like to have some time to think about suggestion 3 in Jonathan's e-mail and also discuss with Nurani.

In the meantime, I welcome to hear feedback from the CRISP Team on any views you may have.

My initial question would be what does this small group do and how do we select who will join.
If it is the Chairs and the ICG members from the commnuties plus the chairs the criteria is quite clear but if we pick anyone from the communities, the criteria needs to be clear.
The group to act as the coordinator between the communities may be helpful given the group come back to the communities, but I'm not sure if the group can act as delegated negotiators.

That's just sharing what came to my mind, as a starting point of the discussions.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 18:40:53 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>

Jonathan, Lise and all,

Thank you for this update and sharing Sidley's legal input.
I'm looking forward to the doodle poll from Grace, and strongly agree this should be completed by the close of the ICG public comment period.

I also have a few updates:

 * I had shared Sidley's memo with our community and with the CRISP Team when it was published.
 * We are planning to have the CRISP Team call on 12th or 13th Aug, which would include this on the agenda.
 * The current suggested plan within the CRISP Team is to summarize observations per Scenario which could then be shared with the number resources community and CWG (ofcourse welcome to be shared to IANAPLAN if relevant).

I would like to communicate this plan to CWG, which hopefully could give more clarify on what is going on in the numbers community to CWG members. 
I'd appreciate it if Jonathan and Lise could help us communicate this to the CWG once it is fixed.

I'd be happy to clarify if any of you have any questions about this plan.


On 2015/08/07 16:27, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> All,
> Following up from the latest email in this thread. I am able to report that the CWG received its legal input on the IPR on Wednesday this week.
> In addition, yesterday (Thursday 6th August) , at our scheduled CWG meeting, we had the lawyers present the work and we ran a Q&A / discussion.
> Please do consider listening to the audio recording of the meeting and / or reading the transcript as you see fit.
> In brief, the outcome was that the CWG requested the following of the chairs:
> 1. That we reach out to this group and communicate the current situation.
> 2. That we convene a meeting to discuss and consider the options for a way forward as soon as possible.
> 3. That we consider forming a small group, suggested to contain the group on this email plus possibly some additions (say up to 2 per proposing group) and including a representative from ICANN. 
> This small group would seek to reconcile the IPR issue across the CWG / CRISP / IANAPLAN and then put this reconciled position back to the Names, Numbers & Protocol communities.
> My personal opinion is that this should be all completed by the close of the ICG public comment period such that we can communicate it to the ICG directly.
> We have attached the legal input from Sidley Austin and look forward to your response as soon as possible, primarily to a request to meet to discuss this. Grace will send out a Doodle Poll shortly.
> Hopefully we can discuss the detail in a meeting once you have had a chance to review the input.
> Best wishes,
> Jonathan & Lise

More information about the CRISP mailing list