[CRISP-TEAM] IPR update and request for feedback: 29th Dec
rendek at ripe.net
Mon Jan 4 17:40:31 CET 2016
I would also like to wish you and the CRISP team much health, happiness
and peace in 2016.
Your review and notes were just great and I appreciate the effort you
put into making them clear for us all.
As a general remark it should be noted that many of the CWG requirements
are not high-level but rather detailed and specific. They go far beyond
what the CRISP Team set forward and I'm not sure whether such details
can be agreed on a community level (at a CRISP/CWG level) without the
direct involvement of lawyers representing all communities and the
organisations that would be party to these arrangements. I agree with
Andrei's comment that at this stage we should agree on the following two
points on a high level:
- Who will be the IPR owner (an entity independent of the IANA Numbering
- How should the IPR owner manage the IPR (a non-discriminatory manner
for the benefit of the entire community).
As for the "who" issue, I am a slightly confused. As Izumi points out,
the CWG requirements could be met by a newly created Trust, but are not
met by the IETF Trust.
For the CRISP team it is enough that the owner is an entity independent
of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, is neutral, trusted by the
community of IANA stakeholders and has a proven track record of
competence and transparency. The CWG goes further and requires equal
effective control by the three communities. In the case of the IETF
Trust, the IETF community theoretically has an advantage, so it doesn't
quite meet the requirements of the CWG.
So although this CWG requirement is consistent with the CRISP
requirement, it narrows it down to the point where it excludes the IETF
Trust and any existing Trust.
As for the "how" issue, I understand that the CWG put forward some
aspects that make sense but have not been discussed by the CRISP
community, e.g. dispute resolution, change of the owner, and the event
of separation. These issues are not dealt with on a high level by the
CWG but in detail that perhaps would make sense for the names community
but would need to be discussed by the other communities.
In order to be pragmatic and facilitate a high level agreement between
the three operational communities, the CWG could pick the absolute
minimum requirements from their list and remove details that can be
dealt with later.
Referring to Izumi's categorisation, in general I agree.
In an effort to keep things at a high level we could try to remove the
details from some of the points in a) and b) and keep the high level
elements that need to be considered.
In point V.3, where I would suggest using the word "expertise" instead
of "experience", the details about the employees and outside trademark
counsels could be removed.
In point III.3.a, the details of moving to a new owner as an ultimate
remedy should be discussed further among the three communities and
conditions and restrictions should not be drawn on a high level.
In I.1.a and I.1.b, if there is general trust in the Trust, we could
insist that effective control could be achieved with contractual
arrangements and that full structural and functional neutrality would
not be necessary.
Finally, I believe that point IV.2 just points out the legal aspect of
what is stated in our requirements so this can be moved to a).
On 04/01/16 13:56, 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.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP