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

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Izumi, all

Izumi Okutani wrote on 11/02/15 03:17:
> Alan, Andrei and all,
> 
> 
> I think we are all on the same page.
>

Yes, I think we are. I agree with your proposed way forward.

Andrei

> 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
>>
>