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

[Craig Ng]

+1 to Izumi and John.


On 25/09/2015 1:42 am, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Sweeting, John"
<crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:

>Hi Izumi,
>
>I agree with your assessment and reasoning.
>
>Thanks
>John
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:22 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150925/c010aa19/smime.p7s>