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

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Mewenda,


We indeed need to have a way to explain and demonstrate that the indendenpend trust can be relied upon and trusted, as a neutral entity the three operational communities feel comfortable enough.
It would help to hear from the IETF Trust for clarity on those points, raised in Sidley's memo.

> It would be great for members to share their views through the list to make
> the call easier :)
Yes, this is strongly encouraged. Thanks Mwenda!


Izumi


On 2015/08/07 18:46, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>