[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Wed Feb 11 08:41:31 CET 2015
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.
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.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP