[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response for the community review

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,



This is the draft e-mail I am planning to send to the global ianaxfer mailing list at UTC23:00 3rd June.
If you have any comments, please share it on the list before UTC22:00. I will be offline from now until then but will try to incorporate the feedback I receive by then.

Many thanks Andrei once again for working on the review and incorporating the comments within the team as well as any relevant points from the global list.
It has been very helpful.

---
Dear Colleagues,



As announced by the NRO, the SLA text based on the numbers community proposal is open for the community consultation by the NRO.

 https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services

We would like to share the CRISP Team's review of the SLA, and welcome comments from the community on the review before: Tue 9th June UTC23:59. 

The CRISP Team review was based on the principles below:

 - The review focuses and limits its scope on whether the SLA is consistent with the numbers community proposal.
 - Specific legal provisions in the SLA are therefore outside the scope of this review. 
 - We note that not all elements of the numbers community proposal which is to be implemented in the SLA;
   There are implementation to be handled outside the SLA, such as transfer of the IPR which belong to the public domain (e.g.IANA trademark, iana.org domain), and setting up of the Review Committee.

Feedback from the community on <ianaxfer at nro.net> will be taken into consideration with the same principles as described above.

Overall, the CRISP Team found that the SLA is consistent with the numbers community proposal. 
However there are a few points where we observed more clarifications are needed, could be read as more definitive than what has bene agreed, or the SLA text could be interpreted as not being consistent. 
Please see the attached review for more details.

We note that on Article 10, there were some differences in opinion on whether it is consistent with the numbers community proposal.
Further discussion in the CRISP Team did not reveal any opposition to the version of the response we are sharing now with the community, before the deadline for comments within the CRISP Team.

After closing the community feedback, we are planning to submit the CRISP Team's SLA review incorporating relevant community feedback to the NRO by 14th June UTC23:59 deadline.


Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno
Chair, Vice Chair of the CRISP Team

---

Izumi


On 2015/06/03 18:42, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> Please find attached the (final) version of the analysis, incorporating
> Izumi's suggestion. I also added a "draft" watermark to make it clear
> that we expect community feedback.
> 
> Andrei
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 03/06/15 11:33:
>> On 2015/06/03 18:12, Janvier Noulaye wrote:
>>> 2015-06-03 10:03 GMT+01:00 Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 03/06/15 10:54:
>>>>> Yes, I think I am confused about the same part.
>>>>
>>>> Since this part s confusing, a better approach may be to clearly state
>>>> our expectation in the analysis, rather than guessing what the precise
>>>> meaning of 12.1.1. could be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ���������Maybe Craig could also more elaborate his statement to clear up the
>>> confusion?���������
>>
>>
>> Yes that would certainly be helpful if Craig (or Michael) could help us in clarifying this point.
>>
>> In the interests of time, and sharing with the global list today, in parallel to above, I suggest we still prepare our suggested response based on our interpretation, and make our observation to be conditional based on what we interpret.
>>
>>
>> Izumi 
>>
>>> ���������/Janvier���������
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about:
>>>>
>>>> This principle is adequately addressed in Article 12. In our
>>>> understanding this provision covers potential IPRs and trademarks,
>>>> excluding the IANA trademark, IANA.ORG and the public registry data. In
>>>> our understanding the expected arrangements for these assets will have
>>>> happened (i.e. transferred to the IETF Trust and declared as being in
>>>> the public domain) before the SLA is signed, and therefore are outside
>>>> the scope of this Agreement.
>>>>
>>>> We also note that such arrangements will need to be documented and
>>>> implemented in other agreements between all of the relevant actors
>>>> (which include more than the parties to this SLA).
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>>
>>>
>>