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

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Mon Jan 4 17:36:20 CET 2016

Hi Izumi,

Izumi Okutani wrote on 04/01/16 16:33:
> 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.

This is probably the point I do not quite understand - I was under the
impression that on a high level all communities have agreed on the
"minimum requirements" (which is essentially what comes out of the CRISP
proposal) - the combined ICG proposal is the evidence. And now it is
time to figure out implementation details.

The DT-IPR document seems to be opening the whole IPR theme up for

In my view this is a principal point and I'd like to understand our
position better.

> 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)).

I agree, we can add " Is neutral, trusted by the community of IANA
stakeholders and has a proven track record of competence and
transparency" from the "minimum requirements" document.

My worry is that playing this as an abstract exercise will lead us to
yet another convoluted structure. If I am not mistaken the main
motivation for the CRISP requirement came from the desire to externalize
the "swing point" to smoothen a potential further transition, not to
establish ideal governance of these assets.

> 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

I cannot agree more. But we also have to agree on the starting point.
Starting from a blank slate is a bit late, IMO.

> 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.

This sounds very reasonable, but why do not we start from another end -
and take the IETF Trust as a practical candidate and the proposed
agreement framework and see what needs to be amended to alleviate
specific concerns?


More information about the CRISP mailing list