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

[Sweeting, John]

On 2/9/15, 2:58 PM, "Andrei Robachevsky" <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:

>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
>proposals.

I agree. From reading the threads this does not look to be an issue.

>
>> 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.

Fully agree with Andrei on this point.


>
>Cheers,
>
>Andrei
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.