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

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

I also support the general consensus that we do not need to change our
proposal. The current document is not prescriptive but gives a suggestion.
And we are not even categorically saying the IPRs should go to IETF Trust
per say, but arguing "any acceptable body by the community" with a
preference to IETF Trust.

And as per the direction of discussion elsewhere, IETF community are ready
to embrace our suggestion.

Regards.

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 11 February 2015 at 05:17, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150211/647a7f23/attachment.html>