[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Feb 9 18:48:46 CET 2015
Yes, I agree with Nurani good to see Jari has started asking this way.
Thanks Andrei for sharing it.
I'm quite optimistic we can reach a point agreeable to both.
I do want to consult you all about the post by Alissa on the IANAXFER
list as well.
The ICG is requesting us to respond to the question below before 21st
Feb or let them know if this is not possible.
"If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would
the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify
their proposals to reconcile them?"
Are we willing to modify the proposal and reconcile?
The rationale of the IETF is that it is not a high priority to address
the IPR issues on IANA trademark and iana.org and may need to consider
serveral factors which may not be completed before the transition.
The bottom line for us, my personal opinion is that we simply want to
make sure that the existing IANA operator does not hold on and disallow
the transfer those IPRs.
As long as it is stated as the condition in the contract, it is not a
must to transfer IPR to a particular organization before the NTIA
stewardship transition on the IANA.
What are your thoughts?
On 2015/02/09 22:31, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Thanks Andrei.
> This is my interpretation as well. Good to hear Jari express it this way.
> On 9 feb 2015, at 20:59, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
>> FYI. There is some discussion going on in the IETF (IANAPLAN WG) on how
>> to answer Alissa's question.
>> IMO, the proposals are indeed incompatible only if the IETF opposes the
>> change. And only in this case an action would be required from our side.
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
>> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 18:48:23 +0800
>> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> CC: ianaplan at ietf.org
>> The IETF proposal did not set it as a requirement that ownership of
>> IANA.ORG be transferred as a part of the transition. The RIR community
>> needs to think if they believe it really is a requirement. But I guess that
>> the question for us is from the IETF perspective, if other communities
>> believe they need that, is the IETF community OK with that? If we are,
>> there are some implications to the IETF Trust, some rules to think about
>> for various future same/different/partially different IANA operator
>> and some negotiations about these. I think we can set most of that aside
>> for the moment, as details to worry about later. But what is the high-level
>> guidance from the IETF community on this?
>> From my perspective the question that we should try to answer at the
>> IETF is as follows. While we are (in my opinion) not changing our
>> proposal - it stays at the �not required� state, is the IETF community
>> OK with a change of ownership? The IETF and RIR proposals are
>> only incompatible if they require the change _and_ we oppose it.
>> FWIW, my read of the earlier discussion in IANAPLAN was that
>> our opinion was �not required� rather than that we�d oppose it. If
>> that is right, then the answer is perhaps that we�d be fine with
>> that. Do I read that right, and what do others think?
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP