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

[Izumi Okutani]

Mwendwa, I completely agree.

It is very much inline with what Nurani and I think.
I would like to request the ICG to come back to us, if they require us to revise the numbers community proposal.

Until then, I even think it could add more confusions in the ICG process if we start revising any part of our proposal without being adviced so by the ICG.

At this stage, we are asked to share our observation on whether the Scenarios are consistent with the existing numbers community proposal.
 
I hope this clarifies the situation - let me know if you have anything else to clarify.
It is helpful you make sure to clarify this point for everyone in the CRISP.


Izumi


On 2015/08/11 5:06, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2015 8:53 PM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Thanks Izumi.
> 
> Just to clarify, and at the risk of reiterating what may have been said ...
> 
> To put everything into perspective, the consolidated ICG proposal has no
> inconsistencies that have been observed. There is nothing we are required
> to do, especially the CRISP team. No other operational community should
> dictate what should or should not be in the proposal of another community.
> For us to change anything, an inconsistency has to be in place. That would
> require for example, one of the communities adding a clause in their
> proposal with a position on the IPR issue that is inconsistent with the
> numbering proposal. Then when that inconsistency is introduced, ICG would
> request the two communities to reconcile. But at this stage, there is
> nothing to reconcile
>