[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Sep 25 13:19:20 CEST 2015
I hear both of you, Andrei, Mwendwa, that you believe the timing is important, hence shouldn't postpone the action items on IPR post-transition.
This is a summary of my suggestion.
1. Submit to ICG, that all IPR issues to be implemented *before* the contract expiry
The current suggested submission to the ICG actually says the IPR issue to be addressed before the contract expiry. It does not say anything about post-transition.
(It is my understanding that this is what Andrei and Mwenda supports)
2. We continue discussions within the CRISP Team in coming two weeks, about timing of implementation of all IPR action items
- We confirm consensus on this issue at the coming CRISP call on 8th Oct
(Whether all action items need to be completed prior to the contract or some can be deferred post-transition)
- I believe this is needed given we observe different opinions
Below is a paste of the draft submission, the same as what I have posted in my earlier mail to Andrei : https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-September/002264.html
If you still have concerns about the draft submission to the ICG, I genuinely don't understand what it is, as I have intended to address your point.
Please suggest a text ASAP.
Action Items to be submittted to the ICG
a) Action Item description (and Combined Proposal paragraph reference (or other reference?)):
b) Indicate whether the item needs to be done:
- before the proposal goes to the NTIA, or
- during implementation (before contract expiry)
c) Group/organization responsible for the action item
d) Indicate dependencies, if any
a) Action Item description
[Action Items from the number community proposal]
1. Contract/SLA between RIRs and ICANN
Based on Section P2.III.A.3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator of the combine proposal, develop and finalise SLA to be exchanged between RIRs and ICANN, to be signed by both parties.
i. First draft (done)
ii. Second draft (done)
iii. Negotiations (started)
iv. Final version
v. Signature - ICANN and the five RIRs
2. Review Committee for IANA Numbers Functions
Based on Section P2.III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee, set up the Review Committee and complete appointment of its members.
i. NRO to finalise charter (done)
ii. Each RIR to finalise detailed appointment methods
iii. Each RIR to appoint members
Based on Section P2.III.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community, identify the holder of IPR and exchange appropriate agreements by the parties involved.
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
4. Further considerations to support continuation to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future (Q.10 from the ICG)
i. Consider additional actions if needed
[Action Items from other operational communities' proposal]
i. Ensure PTI to be established is consistent with the number community has agreed to the names proposal
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
c) Group/organization responsible for the action items
- RIRs are responsible for preparing implemenation for all items
- The CRISP Team is responsible for ensuring the implementation is consistent with the number community proposal
- The CRISP Team coordinates with RIRs on IPR for "All OCs to agree on the holder of IPR"
d) Indicate dependencies, if any
- Action items listed in 3. IPR require coordination with the protocol parameters and the names communities.
On 2015/09/25 19:42, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote:
> I'm with you here Andrei
> On Sep 25, 2015 1:26 PM, "Andrei Robachevsky" <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 25/09/15 09:33:
>>> Let me know if anyone has concerns about this approach.
>> Izumi, as I explained in my previous mail, I am concerned that deferring
>> a decision on this issue undermines the numbers proposal.
>> The communities have come very close to the agreement as far as I
>> understand. Taking our foot off the accelerator now would mean that we
>> either will have to start over again, or, most probably, not resolve the
>> issue at all.
>> The problem is that possible negative consequences of such situation
>> will appear only when (and if) the numbers community decide to change
>> the IFO, not immediately. That means that after the transition there
>> will be very little appetite to resolve it.
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP