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

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks John, Mwendwa, Craig for your comments.

I observe more support for not making it a must before the contract expiry, but I don't see clear consensus about the timing on some IPR actions at this stage yet.

Since the options from the ICG at this stage are either :

 - "before the proposal goes to the NTIA", or 
 - "during implementation (before contract expiry)"

and there is no option about post-transition, may I suggest we remove the last bullet point on the IPR for this submission to the ICG.

It doesn't mean that we make it a must to complete it before the contract expiry -  if agreed, we can go back to explain to the ICG that we chose the latter option as there was no option provided for beyond the transition.
In the meantime, we continue discussions within the CRISP Team, and seek for a consensus about the timing of implementation before the next CRISP call.

Would this work for opinions from both sides? 

Let me know if anyone has concerns about this approach.

We do need to make a decision about the timing of IPR action items, but I would like to discuss this properly and not in a rush on the ML like this, since it could have long term implications,
I haven't discussed it with Nurani in the interest of time, so she may have other thoughts.


---- 
 Current:
 b) Timing for the actions to be completed 
    All actions are to be done during implementation (before contract expiry) except:
 
    - Action item 4. needs to be completed before the proposal goes to the NTIA
    - For IPR, "i. All OCs to agree on the principles for the holder of IPR" is to be completed during implementation (before contract expiry) 
      (For all other actions (ii.-v.) for IPR listed, it is not a must to complete them before the contract expiry)

 Suggestion:
 b) Timing for the actions to be completed 
    All actions are to be done during implementation (before contract expiry) except:
     - Action item 4. needs to be completed before the proposal goes to the NTIA

---- 



Izumi


On 2015/09/25 15:50, Craig Ng wrote:
> +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