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

[Izumi Okutani]

Alan, Andrei and all,


I think we are all on the same page.

We already discussed within CRISP on the ML and  onsite in Singapore
(with those who are here), and we informally shared perspectives with
the IETF, so we are covered in these steps.

I have shared the question to ask on the ianaxfer list in my earlier post.


>  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

I will send this message out to the ianaxfer list after UTC8:00am today.

Izumi


On 2015/02/11 5:47, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Alan,
> 
> Alan Barrett wrote on 10/02/15 20:30:
>>> 3. discuss within the CRISP team to summarize the situation, to prepare
>>> to consult with the community (it is not a decision)
>>
>> I think that we need to ask the community much sooner.  That's why I had
>> it as the very first step in my proposal.
>>
>> There needs to be community input in parallel with whatever discussions
>> we have with the IETF and IETF Trust.
> 
> It is not clear to me what community input we would be asking for. We
> should certainly inform the community of the developments, but unless we
> have to reconcile our proposal with the IETF one, and subsequently
> modify our proposal, what input do we need?
> 
> The RIR community stated their expectations and preferences. If the IETF
> Trust is willing to meet them with the support of the IETF community - I
> am not sure what else needs to be done from our side.
> 
> It seems to me that it very much depends on the IETF trust/IETF
> community response. Perhaps we should wait a bit to see how incompatible
> the proposals first.
> 
> Andrei
>