[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Andrei,


Thanks for your feedback and good that I confirmed.

> I do not see why we would treat the IPR other than other items, like the
> SLA. For the latter we want it to be agreed and probably even signed
> before the transition.

I agree that will be desirable but I don't feel the level of requirement for the IPR is the same as the SLA in terms of completing the implementation.
It is important to have the SLA in place to ensure accountability of the IANA Numbering Services Operator.

For the IPR, it is still related to the accountability especially in case of change in the IFO which is why we want the holder or the IPR to be independent from the IFO but it doesn't seem like an issue which will immediately have its relevance at the time of the transition.

That's just me thinking - the participants at the CRISP call were limited so I would like to hear more on this point.

> To me, deferring the decision on these details, and specifically - on
> the organization-holder and the license agreement, does not make much
> sense. These have to be sorted out before the transition, IMO.

I see, sure. If all operational communities can reach an agreement on the suggested implementation plan by the IETF Trust, preparing its implementation may not be a hard thing to complete before Sep next year.
I am not so optimistic whether we will manage to agree on all the details of implementation before Sep next year as it needs coordination with other operational communities.
I would like to avoid this being a blocking factor in moving forward with the transtion. Ofcourse we'll target to complete it but not make it a prerequisite - so that was the rationale around this. 

I understand you believe it has to be sorted before the transition. What is the thinking behind it?


Izumi

2015/09/25 0:20, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi Izumi, all
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 24/09/15 16:55:
>> 1. Feedback requested for the Implementation Action items for ICG submission [Before UTC13:00 25th Sep]
>>
>>    https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-September/002248.html
>>
>>    Question:
>>    Do you agree that IPR principles, agreed by all operational communities must be completed during the implementation before expiry of the NTIA contract but other IPR details can be agreed post-transition, including a specific 
>>    organization as the holder of the IPR?
>>     i.e., It is not a must to agree whether the IETF Trust or any other specific entity will be the holder of the IPR pre-transition. 
>>           This can continue to be discussed post-transition, in case no consensus is reached by the operational communities, in the meantime ICANN holds the IPR.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I do not see why we would treat the IPR other than other items, like the
> SLA. For the latter we want it to be agreed and probably even signed
> before the transition.
> 
> To me, deferring the decision on these details, and specifically - on
> the organization-holder and the license agreement, does not make much
> sense. These have to be sorted out before the transition, IMO.
> 
> Andrei
>