[CRISP-TEAM] IPR update and request for feedback: 29th Dec

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Andrei and all,


The best wishes back to you for the new year!
Wish you all 2016 to be a fruitful year and also hope we'll all have a better work-life balance this year ;).

Many thanks Andrei for your feedback.
I continue to welcome feedback from other CRISP Team members within today, 4th Jan, about the categorisation I have called for comments: 

 https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-December/002397.html

Please also express your view if you think having an irregular CRISP call on 5th Jan UTC1300 would be useful to discuss it verbally.
I have suggested to organise the call if three more members support and can join the call (So far, it is John and myself who can join).


> I do not think the requirements in the
> DT-IPR Draft are necessarily conflicting with the CRISP proposal, but
> they are definitely excessive. And I think this is a problem that may
> make the implementation unfeasible.
> 

I completely agree with both you and Andrei that CWG is going into more details than needed.
We need to leave some flexibilities for implementation, and expertise to be provided by the lawyers.

I tried to put those which are better to be discussed by the lawyers and for the implementation phase into d) but perhaps I may have missed some.

If any of you observe what has been categorised as a) and/or b) to be more appropriate to go into d) (or c), please feel free to share your view.


> I think if we want a pragmatic and workable outcome we need to go back
> to the combined ICG proposal and look for the requirements there. What I
> see there is:
> - "entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator", and
> - "these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit
> of the entire community".

I agree with the spirit of this and can share this observation at the coming call with by the operational community leaders, unless I hear any other comments.

To understand your point more clearly Andrei, if there are principles which are currently categorised under a) and b) but you believe should go into c) and/or d), would you share it?

I'm a little hesitant to restrict the high level principles to be agreed by the three operational communities to the above two points only.
We have listed more in the CRISP IPR principles, and it wouldn't get us to move the coordination among the three operational communities forward, from what we agreed for the ICG proposal if we only restrict to the above two points.
(or perhaps I have misinterpreted your comment. If you meant you are OK to add more principles than the two you have listed, but the above two points should be the judging factor, I take your point. Still it would be good to have your feedback, if you see anything to be moved to c) or d), out of those which are currently listed under a) and b)).

The more "principles" we postpone to later stage (stage two: implementation stage), the more rooms for ambiguity it leaves at the implementation stage. Additionally, it gives less time to work on the actual implementation if we are left with many details to coordinate around the basic principles/framework.

At this stage, I prefer to :

 - Coordinate differences in opinions on high level principles at this phase between the three operational communities as much as possible, unless it touches on details for the implementation/adds too much restrictions to implementation. 
 - Some of the high level principles, which were not discussed by the CRISP Team but added by the CWG can be useful to be agreed by the three OCs, before the submission of the proposal to the NTIA

We should certainly express concerns if the principles to be listed in categories a) and b) will:

 - Contradict with the ICG proposal/CRISP IPR principles
 - Touch into implementation details/restricts implementation
 - Touch into expertise needed by lawyers

That's my two cents and continue to welcome feedback from the CRISP Team.


Izumi

On 2016/01/04 18:56, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
> 
> First of all - all the best wishes for the new 2016 to you and all the
> CRISP team!
> 
> Thank you very much for the thoughtful review and notes. My comment is
> related to the first point "Principles and Requirements".
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 24/12/15 17:22:
>> Note: For I.1.a., I observe consistency with the CRISP IPR principles, *if* this is the principle to be applied in case we agree to set up a new Trust. I observe possible inconsistency with the CRISP IPR principles if this is set as the minimum requirement (I also categorised I.1.a. under "c) Principles which would/may not be consistent with the CRISP IPR principles" for this reason, in case of based on the latter assumption)
>>
> 
> I completely agree with you. I do not think the requirements in the
> DT-IPR Draft are necessarily conflicting with the CRISP proposal, but
> they are definitely excessive. And I think this is a problem that may
> make the implementation unfeasible.
> 
> I think if we want a pragmatic and workable outcome we need to go back
> to the combined ICG proposal and look for the requirements there. What I
> see there is:
> - "entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator", and
> - "these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit
> of the entire community".
> 
> I do not see a reason to go beyond these simple points.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrei
> 
>