[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Feb 10 05:12:14 CET 2015
Thank you all for your feedback.
I am replying to Alan's tread but I have read Andrei's and John's post.
Totally agree it has to be discused with the community.
I didn't state it as I assumed that was the obvious but realised I
sounded like I am considering to discuss this within the CRISP Team only.
Just to share the CRISP Team members who are not in Singapore -
We are plannig to have an informal converation with the people from the
IETF this afternoon.
The idea is to exchage our perceptions and no decisions will be made
ofcourse as this should ofcourse be discussed by the community.
On 2015/02/10 9:03, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015, Andrei Robachevsky 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
> I think that we should involve our community in the discussion.
> My understanding is that there is no real conflict. The three
> communities involved, and their positions as I understand them, are:
> Numbers: prefer that the the IANA trademark and domain name
> be transferred to the IETF trust;
To go one more up in highlevel -
We stated that the intellectual propoerty rights should be with the
operatonal communities on the existing IANA operator.
> IETF (ianaplan group): discussed it, and decided not to state
> a preference.
What I think I heard from some IETF folks here was that it was felt it
was not necessary as a part of the proposal as the issue of IPR was
cosnidered not a high priority, and many more things to worry about.
They are fine for these to stay with ICANN at the time of the
Let's double check with IETF folks this afternoon.
> IETF Trust: has not been formally approached.
> It's easy to imagine solutions that satisfy all three, so there is no
> conflict, just some details to be worked out.
> My suggestion is:
Thanks for listing the steps Alan. This is helpful.
My suggeston below:
1. Discuss within the CRISP Team whether we are willing to consider
revising the proposal, and also consult with the community.
I will update what I hear from the IETF folks and consult you on the ML
whether we are willing to consider changes.
(at this stage, simply whether we are willing to re-consider, withougt
details on how we do it)
2. Respond to the ICG before 21 Feb, whether we are willing to
re-considering the proposal
- based on discussions in step1
3. discuss within the CRISP team to summarize the situation, to prepare
to consult with the community (it is not a decision)
Clarify below for effective disccussions:
- interpretation of the proposal
- summarize "inconsistencies" with IETF proposal
- options of moving forward
Then move to the steps listed below.
> 1. The CRISP Team asks the ianaxfer group:
> a) whether transfer of the IANA IPR is required
> or merely desirable.
> b) whether transfer itself should be part of the transition,
> or whether a commitment to transfer in the future
> would be sufficient.
> c) to discuss ways of dealing with a potential future in which
> names, numbers, and protocol parameters, are each
> handled by a different IANA operator.
I prefer to discuss c) as a seperate topic - it's related but much
> 2. The CRISP Team reports the result of 1 above to the IETF
> ianaplan group, and asks the IETF ianaplan group to confirm that
> they have no objection to transferring the IANA IPR.
> 3. The CRISP Team reports the result of 1 and 2 to the IETF Trust
> and asks the IETF Trust whether they would be willing to
> accept the IPR.
> Or we could skip step 1, and go straight to asking whether the IETF
> has objections.
I don't think we should skip step 1. We must discuss on ianaxfer list.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP