[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Mon Feb 9 20:58:52 CET 2015

Hi Izumi,

Izumi Okutani wrote on 09/02/15 18:48:

> "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?

If this appear to be the case, I think we should try to reconcile them.
But looking at the discussion in the IETF we may not need to do that at
all, since it looks like there is no incompatibility between the two

> 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?

I think the community was pretty clear regarding the transfer of thee
assets. If we want to modify this section we will have to confirm this
with the community, IMO.



> Izumi
> 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.
>> Nurani
>> 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.
>>> Andrei
>>> -------- 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
>>> scenarios,
>>> 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?
>>> Jari
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

More information about the CRISP mailing list