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

[Sweeting, John]

Izumi, thank you for keeping us all informed.

On 2/9/15, 11:12 PM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>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
>>> side.
>>
>> 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
>stewardship transition.
>
>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
>larger topic.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Izumi
>
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.