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

Wed Feb 11 02:38:55 CET 2015

CRISP Team,

As a quick update, all of the  CRISP Team members in Singapore as well
sa both Jari and Russ did not observe any inconsistencies between the
protocol and numbers proposal.

 IETF: not proposing IPR related issues but not opposing to consider
       the transfer to the IETF trust
 Numbers: It is a must to clarify (through SLA) that IPR does not stay
          with the existing IANA operator.

          IETF Trust is mentioned as one of the accoeptable options and
          simply a preference.

          The transfer of IPR to a particular entity outside does not
          need to happen before the IANA stewardship transition.

As the next step, we consult with our community on the ianxafer list and
confirm whether they agree to take the suggested approach below:

  - Do not see the need to change the proposal
  - We make a joint statement with the IETF  to submit to the
    ICG that we do not observe inconsistencies for the reasons
    explained above

Izumi

On 2015/02/10 23:12, Sweeting, John wrote:
> 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.
> 