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

[Alan Barrett]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>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.

The IETF is still discussing whether or not they will oppose.  
Informally, indications are that they will not oppose.

> 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

The ICG didn't ask us to work it out, they asked a very specific 
question:

    "If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as
    incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters
    communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile
    them?"

I think the answer to that specific question is "Yes, if there 
is an incompatibility then we would be willing to modify the 
proposal."

We can add things like:

  - We are aware of discussion within the IETF and we are hopeful that
    the IETF will decide that it has no objection to the proposed
    transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain name;
  - We are also hopeful that the IETF Trust will accept custody of these
    properties, if such custody is offered to it;
  - In any case, transfer of these properties to the IETF Trust is
    merely a suggestion, not a requirement of the numbering community's
    proposal;
  - It is important to the numbering community that these properties
    be associated with the IANA services, not with any particular
    IANA services operator; if that can be achieved in some other
    way than by transferring the properties to the IETF Trust,
    then that would satisfy the requirements of our proposal.
  - Because of all the above, we think there is no incompatibility,
    and no need to modify our proposal.

--apb (Alan Barrett)