[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
apb at cequrux.com
Tue Feb 10 01:13:05 CET 2015
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>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?
That's up to our community. I think that it's likely that the IETF will
have no objection, and the IETF trust will have no objection, so there
will be no need to modify our proposal. There is a need for
coordination, as we mentioned in our proposal, and we are starting to
work on that.
>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.
I have a few concerns.
* If the IANA function is moved, or split between multiple
operators, then the new operator or operators should all be able
to use the IANA mark and domain name.
* If ICANN is ever removed as the IANA operator, then ICANN should
have no right to use the IANA mark and domain name.
An enforceable commitment to transfer in the distant future might
be enough, but I'd prefer a transfer in the near future.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP