[CRISP-TEAM] Possible inconsinstency pointed out on IRP for Section III A2 and IIIA3

[Paul Rendek]

Hey Izumi,

Thanks for this and I agree with you and others  on the points below. I
am currently going through the text from Paul Wilson as well as the
section III.A.3 and will provide my input to the list shortly. I am jsut
waiting for Europe to wake up and we'll hit this ;-P

Thanks,
Paul


On 1/14/15 5:54 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> I think there is an agreement the text needs to be improved for
> consistency on IPR.
>
> Thank you Andrei for categorizing each elements and Alan for pointing
> out specific inconnsistencies. Very helpful.
>
>
> Paul/Nurani, I wonder if you could help revise text to reflect the
> points below for IIIA3ix?
>
> We can ask others to help if needed but I feel it may be better for you
> to control the overall text on this part.
>
> To Alan's point -
>
>>>> I think we would like some IPR to be vested in neutral organisations,
>>>> and some IPR to be in the public domain.  Section III.A.3.ix seems to me
>>>> to be talking about the part that should be in the puiblic domain
>>>> (almosst everything except the trademank and domain name), but it could
>>>> be worded more clearly.
> Agree.
>
>>>> Also, III.A.3.ix talks about "public domain or the RIRs", while III.A.2
>>>> does not have "or the RIRs".  They should be consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Where did "or the RIRs" come from?  I seem to recall discussions about
>>>> the public domain.
> I also don't recall our consensus on RIRs either.
> My understanding is the same as Alan's.
>
> Let's confirm at the call today but feedback on the ML beforehand is
> welcome.
>
> On 2015/01/14 1:55, Paul Rendek wrote:
>> Yes, I agree. Well spotted Alan and thanks Andrei for actually listing
>> these. It makes it much clearer.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 1/13/15 4:32 PM, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>>> Agree.
>>>
>>> I think confusion comes from the fact that we are talking about 3
>>> differrent things and perhaps do not articulating this sufficiently:
>>>
>>> - IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain  -> IETF Trust
>>> - public number resource registries -> public domain
>>> - Any future intellectual property rights -> public domain or RIRs
>>>
>>> Regarding the third one, I think it depends on the nature of the IPRs,
>>> we may as well include the IETF Trust as a potential destination.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> Alan Barrett wrote on 13/01/15 17:07:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>>>> These is a highlighting the texts related to IRP where confirmation
>>>>> about possible inconsistency expressed on the IANAXFER list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do any of you think we need to improve any part of the text to make it
>>>>> sound less inconsistent?
>>>> Yes, I think we could improve the text.
>>>>
>>>> I think we would like some IPR to be vested in neutral organisations,
>>>> and some IPR to be in the public domain.  Section III.A.3.ix seems to me
>>>> to be talking about the part that should be in the puiblic domain
>>>> (almosst everything except the trademank and domain name), but it could
>>>> be worded more clearly.
>>>>
>>>> Also, III.A.3.ix talks about "public domain or the RIRs", while III.A.2
>>>> does not have "or the RIRs".  They should be consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Where did "or the RIRs" come from?  I seem to recall discussions about
>>>> the public domain.
>>>>
>>>> --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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>