[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Sep 25 12:29:36 CEST 2015
As you say, it is a matter or agreement and preparing implementation should not be complex, if the implementation is to be based on that is proposed by the IETF Trust.
I suspect reaching an agreement could be challenging but I also see your point that if it doesn't happen before the transition, it will never happen.
i.e, We will not be able to have an implementation consistent with the number community proposal
This sounds consistent with the point Mwendwa has raised.
What do other members of the CRISP team think about this point?
In parallel, let me ask another question to Andrei and Mwenda (and anyone else who wishes to express the view).
Out of the list of actions, do you believe it is a must to agree on all actions (i-v), or it is a must to complete i-ii. but iii-v can wait post transition?
i. All OCs to agree on the principles for the holder of IPR
ii. All OCs to agree on the holder of IPR
iii. New organisation to be set up, or changes to how IETF Trust works, if necessary
iv. Agreements between operational communities and IPR holder
v. Agreement between IPR holder and IANA functions operator
I'm wondering if the concern raised by Andrei and Mwenda could be largely addressed once we agree on i and ii, and the rest is a matter of putting the implementation in place.
- If out of these two choices, my preference would be the latter (i-ii is a must but iii-v can wait post transition), while I'm still undecided on whether ii should be a must before the contract terminates.
- Given that it has taken us 4 months since May to have an SLA and start negotiation with ICANN, I am not so optimistic that all OCs will be able to complete upto action v in one year from now.
Just to be clear, my suggestion in the last post below still stays active (i.e. don't mention about post transition), and this is just for continuing discussions to seek for consensus point as the CRISP Team, targetting before the next call: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-September/002260.html
On 2015/09/25 18:09, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 24/09/15 19:22:
>> I understand you believe it has to be sorted before the transition. What is the thinking behind it?
> The issue does not seem to be complex, so it is indeed just a matter of
> agreeing (or not). So if the communities cannot sort this out before the
> transition, I have no reason to believe it can/will be sorted out after.
> This means the IPR will stay with ICANN in perpetuity, which
> fundamentally undermines the numbers proposal.
More information about the CRISP