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

[Andres Piazza]

Just to confirm that I was on that room too and agree with the approach.

A.

El 11/2/15 a las 9:38, Izumi Okutani escribió:
> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp