[CRISP-TEAM] Observation on IPR

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Aug 17 12:15:07 CEST 2015


Hi all,


Please see attached what I have reflected and put into a word document, based on bulllet points.

 * I have added Andrei's and Nurani's points.

 * IPR owner not independent from IPR weaken accountability of the numbers proposal
   This needs either more explanation or do without it. Please see comment in the attached file.

 * Observation about ICANN: Last bullet changed
   ICANN does not have bottom up community based policy making mechanism relevant to all three IANA functions.
   --> ICANN is bottom up community policy making forum only for the names community.
    (Previous versions was indirect and confusing while we just want to say that ICANN is basically names community centered)

 * "Request for the Next Step" is based on the original bullet points plus Nurani's input
   Please let me know if the tone is too strong/does not convey our point clear enough.

I would like to share this with Jonathan and Lise, to be shared with the CWG at UTC15:00 today 17th Aug.
Would appreciate your input by UTC14:00 - my apologies for the short notice, while the points themselves shouldn't be new.

I am planning to send this with cc to Nurani and ianaxfer at nro.net list, under Nurani and my name.



Izumi


On 2015/08/14 1:11, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yes I agree that it might be better to not specify a time period but to make it clear that anything that involves going back to our community would require adequate time for discussion and final comments. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Nurani
> 
> 
> 
>> On 13 Aug 2015, at 17:55, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrei, Nurani, all,
>>
>>
>> I agree with Nurani's suggestion as discussed. 
>>
>> Just one minor point, I suggest not specify a period needed to consult our community -  and just keep to a general concern on the impact, that we would like to hear from the CWG as early as possible of its conclusion, in case any option involves us to consult our community to give us sufficient time for discussions (basically paraphrasing what you said).
>>
>> One month is reasonable and we will be contrained shorter than this, but it may be too specific to say at this point, and also to make our point.
>>
>> My comments inline.
>>
>>> On 2015/08/13 18:33, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> One additional, separate point that Izumi and I discussed a little. 
>>>
>>> I do think it is very important to clarify to both the CWG and the ICG that any action that would involve us consulting our community, would require a minimum of at least a month consultation period. 
>>>
>>> I am concerned that unless there is a resolution to this very soon, the CRISP team may be asked to consult our community very late in the process, and that there then will be pressure on us to rush something through our community. This would of course be very bad news for us, for our community and for the overall process. Therefore, I feel it is prudent to be clear about the amount of time our community expects to consider any questions put to them.
>>
>> My comment above about specifying the period, I agree with everything else.
>>
>>> Nurani
>>>
>>>> On 13 aug 2015, at 10:48, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrei and all,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for these comments. Very helpful. 
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 aug 2015, at 09:53, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Izumi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the approach and agree with the main points. A few comments inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 12/08/15 12:09:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that or the historical perspective we put our stress on the
>>>>> point below:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned on the call, I think it'd also be useful to reflect on
>>>>> the rationale behind the principle related to the IPRs in the numbers
>>>>> proposal: to move these assets to a stable place independent from an IFO
>>>>> to facilitate smooth transition to a possible successor, or successors.
>>>>> Absence of this element will weaken the accountability mechanism
>>>>> proposed by the numbers community.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very good point. Thanks for adding that.
>>
>> Indeed. I very much like the idea of explaining the independence from IFO on IPR being inline with indepedence we have proposed for the IANA Numbering Services.
>> IFO is an operator which provides the services to the communities/direct customers and it does not make sense rationally that an operator owns the IPR, given their are delegated to perform its role.
>>
>> I don't know how far we say about weaken the accountability mechanism proposed by the numbers community. I'm thinking it may be a bit complicated to explain the linkage.
>> Do you think it won't sufficiently get our point accross if we just leave it to making the observation above?
>>
>>>>> Following this consideration, I'd like to observe that it is the
>>>>> community that should designate a licensee for the use of the IANA
>>>>> related IPRs (exactly the way they would choose an IFO for their
>>>>> function), and not the entity that holds the IPRs (e.g. the IETF Trust).
>>>>> IMO, the role of that entity should be limited to being a "container"
>>>>> and exercising quality control.
>>>>
>>>> I am not an IPR lawyer, so I don’t know what this legal arrangement would look like. But I very much agree with your principle. 
>>>>
>>>> (If doable, this might also alleviate concerns some hold in the names community.)
>>
>> Excellent point. Indeed this could possibly lessen the concerns of some members of the CWG and may clarify some misunderstandings.
>>
>> Perhaps we can also add something like "We consider the role of the Trust to be strictly limited to managing the mark and the domain, based on what the three operational communities agree on how it should be managed."
>> Wording suggestions welcome.
>>
>>>>>> * 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
>>>>>
>>>>> I think ICANN *is* the IFO from the numbers perspective, as it stands now.
>>
>> I suspect there may be different interpretations to it.
>> How about we simply say at this stage that "not consistent since RIRs are signing the contract with ICANN." and leave it there.
>>
>>>> Indeed. Maybe we should state this clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Scenario 2: not consistent since PTI is IFO itself
>>>>>
>>>>> The PTI is ICANN's (IFO's) contractor for the provision of the services,
>>>>> which makes even less sense to grant any IPR to it.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>
>> Agree and would be good to add that point.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Scenario 3: consistent
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again Andrei. 
>>>>
>>>> A quick additional point from me. 
>>>>
>>>> I think it is also worth noting as a general point that the Sidley report is carried out only from a names perspective and looking at potential advantages and disadvantages to that community. It might be obvious, but it could be good to state it clearly, as there is a plethora of other factors to consider for the other communities.
>>
>> Yes, this will make a good intro before we share our observations. 
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Izumi
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nurani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The CRISP Team Observation on IPR.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150817/7a90a225/TheCRISPTeamObservationonIPR-0001.docx>


More information about the CRISP mailing list