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

[Andres Piazza]

Agree fully with John and Andrei.

Hope IETF agrees with us so there is no need for modifications to the 
proposal.

Andres

El 10/2/15 a las 4:39, Sweeting, John escribió:
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp