[CRISP-TEAM] Observation on IPR

[Sweeting, John]

Izumi, very well written. I like and support it.



On 8/12/15, 6:09 AM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Izumi Okutani"
<crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>CRISP Team,
>
>
>At the call with CWG/IANAPLAN/ICG Chairs and ICG representatives from NRO
>and IETF, we have shared our observations on IPR for Sidley's memo.
>
>It would help CWG to consider the scenarios to share our perspective in
>addition to Sidley's memo, so I have offered to have our observations
>written out.
>
>The CWG Chairs think it would be helpful to have this shared at least 48
>hours before their call, on 20th Aug.
>May I suggest we target to share with them by Mon 17th Aug? The earlier
>we share, the better chance they will have to discuss it online and
>prepare for the call.
>
>
>This is a draft summary of bullet points.
>Please let us hear your feedback at the coming CRISP Team call.
>
>
>* The concept behind our proposal
>   - history and the root of the IANA functions
>   - it was originally owned by USC, transfered to ICANN as a part of the
>NTIA contract
>   - now that the transition from the NTIA will take place, it is logical
>to move the IPRs to the community with that transition
>   - the root of the IANA functions comes from the IETF RFCs, so the IETF
>to hold the IPRs for the community. they have a decicated trust to manage
>the mark.
>
>* Observations about Sidley's scenarios
>   - Scenario 1: not consistent since RIRs are signing the contract with
>ICANN. ICANN would not be an organization independent of IFO
>   - Scenario 2: not consistent since PTI is IFO itself
>   - Scenario 3: consistent
>
>* Observations on the way forward
>   1. The IETF Trust
>      - most logical holder as explained in the concept behind our
>proposal
>      - would not create inconsistency with the numbers community proposal
>      - no concern about stability as the trust exists and manages the
>mark today
>      - it is a body which specialises in IPR management
>      - the IETF Trust is neutral and declares public interests in the
>charter - quote the charter
>      [Double check if the IETF Trust has declared that they are willing
>to let the operational communities to use the mark and the domain]
>
>   2. An independent Trust
>      - would not create inconsistency with the numbers community proposal
>      - however still require discussions in the numbers community
>whether this is an acceptable solution, given it was not a specific
>option discussed
>      - concerns about impact on timelines to agree on the criteria,
>composition at this point in the process, which leads to delaying of
>submission to NTIA until an agreement is reached
>      - adds a lot of unpredictability may lead to stability, plus how do
>we ensure expertise, funding
>      - The main concern with this option is the risk of delaying the
>overall process timeline
>
>   3. ICANN
>      - not consistent with the proposal and require us to have
>discussions in the numbers community if CWG reaches consensus on this
>option
>      - concerns on the impact to timelines by requiring the community to
>discuss and the ICG to make revision in the proposal, with the next round
>of public comment with new concept
>      - would not have element of unpredictability as ICANN currently is
>the holder of the mark and the domain, no concern about the stability
>      - As ICANN is not the source of these IPRs, the argument can be
>made that it is not the rightful owner of the IPRs and that they should
>be transferred to the community as part of this transition
>      - ICANN does not have bottom up community based policy making
>mechanism relevant to all three IANA functions.
>
>   4. PTI
>      - not consistent with the proposal and likely to be difficult to
>get consensus to reconsider it, even if CWG reaches consensus on this
>option
>      - makes no logical sense for PTI to own the mark, given it is a
>service operator delegated to provide the service
>
>In addition to legal analysis, would like to highlight the rationale for
>the holder of IPR (in light of the history and root of the IANA
>functions), impact on timelines and stability per scenario, as
>consideration factors when comparing options.
>
>* Question to CWG
>   - Would like to confirm the timelines for the CWG to reach conclusion
>about the IPR, and how this will be in line with the ICG process
>   - We need to confirm and hear from the CWG on your position, in order
>to take our next action. Otherwise, it is not clear what action or
>additional consideration is needed for the numbers community.
>   - We would not want this to be the delaying factor to the transtion
>and look forward to hearing from the CWG's position in a timely manner,
>so any coordination if needed between the operational communities can
>move to the next step ASAP
>   - We are happy to be of assistance, should the CWG need any additional
>information or clarification from CRISP
>
>Izumi
>
>_______________________________________________
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp


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.