[CRISP-TEAM] [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Aug 10 19:53:50 CEST 2015
Thanks John, Bill, Mwendwa, Andrei, for expressing your views.
This is really helpful reference for the coming calls suggested by the CWG Chairs as CWG/CRISP/IANAPLAN Coordination Meeting.
>From the numbers, we have requested Alan and Paul Wilson to join us.
I see all who have expressed opinion so far see Scenarios 1 and 2 are incompatible, Scenario 1 as we exchange SLA with ICANN.
We haven't heard concerns about Scenario 3, until this point expressed to us directly nor through the ICG.
I continue to welcome any other observations.
- Tuesday 11 at 19:00 UTC
- Monday 17 at 19:00 UTC
The agenda has not being circulated.
I discussed with Nurani to confirm the status in CWG, any observations on Sidley's memo, and the next steps.
In terms of the next step suggested by the CWG, I take the point expressed so far that we shouldn't be negotiation but simply stick to sharing our observations.
All notes of the meeting should be shared, as we had been in the past meetings.
Are there any other points you feel we should note?
If you have any thoughts on the composition of who should be able to join this call, let me know.
- What seems to be discussed by the CWG is the chairs and some indivisuals (needs double checking)
- It is hard to chose from scratch, so my suggestion wold be the ICG representatives from NRO.
- This would cover Andrei's point that we should have RIRs joining the call.
- It may also be helpful to have lawyers join the call either seperately among themselves or at calls where specific legal advice is needed.
@Nurani, please feel free to add anything else.
On 2015/08/10 22:38, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> As do I. If the path that is in conformance with Numbers and Protocols is work, then work is to be done. If there’s a problem, then the problem should be identified and addressed. In the absence of any identified problem, there’s no reasonable path forward that is not in compliance with Numbers and Protocols.
>> On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>> Agree with Andrei
>> On 8/10/15, 5:15 AM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Andrei
>> Robachevsky" <crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of robachevsky at isoc.org>
>>> Mwendwa Kivuva wrote on 10/08/15 07:58:
>>>> On 10 August 2015 at 02:34, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net
>>>> <mailto:woody at pch.net>> wrote:
>>>> My take on it is the same as Johnąs. We seem to be getting
>>>> railroaded by the Namesą folks interests, as was kinda predictable
>>>> that we would. I guess the bottom line is that I donąt want any
>>>> objections from us to add to the delays theyąve already created, and
>>>> Iąm willing to compromise on this issue as long as everyone is
>>>> _really clear_ that we can go our own way as soon as we like, so if
>>>> they screw this up, it wonąt affect us long-term.
>>>> We should also be prepared for the consequences of any compromise. For
>>>> example, any compromise that goes against the CRISP proposal will
>>>> have to go back to the community process and seek re-approval. From the
>>>> SLA, it is clearly stated that ICANN is the IFO. So the community
>>>> proposal is praying for the IPR to sit anywhere other than within ICANN.
>>> So, taking Sidley's advice at face value, scenarios 1 and 2 are clearly
>>> incompatible with the numbers proposal, and the main downside of
>>> scenario 3 (An independent trust, such as the IETF Trust) is that it
>>> "will require the most effort to implement".
>>> Well, if that is a strong argument against, we shouldn't have started
>>> working on the transition in the first place!
>>> If Sidle's analysis passes the IETF Trust legal review and they say it
>>> is doable, I do not quite see a problem. I have not seen any objections
>>> to the Trust option since January, and the ICG proposal does not
>>> indicate them either. Unless we hear specific concerns we (and the
>>> Trust) cannot address them.
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP