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

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Andrei,


I agree, the ICG proposal should be the starting point and it is something we should always refer back.
The Chairs of the OCs have agreed that in doing this excercise, we are not re-defining what has already been agreed in the ICG proposal. 

I think I have a better understanding of where your concerns come from and I assure you, we are not trying to re-do this part of work from scratch.

 Notes from the IPR call among the three Operational Communities
 https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-December/002381.html

  "* The implementation effort is not a place to rethink or renegotiate results of community or ICG proposals"

To summarise the current status:

 - What we are now doing is adding more meat (principles) to the bones (the ICG proposal). This is needed to prepare for implementation.
 - We ourselves have developed the CRISP IPR principles.
   They are based on the ICG proposal but explaining more explicit principles in addition to the ICG proposal, which the three operational communities need to agree, in order to consider implementation. 
   These CRISP IPR principles reached consensus in the numbers community only, which needs further coordination with other operational communities.
 - The CWG's IPR Team is developing its principles
 - In order to coordinate between CRISP IRP principles and CWG's IPR principles, I have made a comparison and put them into categories

I agree with your observations that many of them are more details than needed for the principles, hence developed a draft to categorise those bullets in the CWG's draft. I have put them under category d), of the details which seems more than high level principles to me. 

I can think of the options below as the approach we can take:

 a) Do not add more principles than what is described in the ICG proposal
    (Note: We ourselves have added more principles by developing the CRISP IPR principles)

 b) Do not add more principles than what is described in the CRISP IPR principles

 c) Keep the spirit of not going details when defining "High Level principles". However, be open to add additional high level principles if it is helpful to agree among the three OCs and agreeable for the numbers community perspective.
    It should not touch operational details/restricting implementation option which is considered as needed for the numbers community/we have not yet fully considered and want to keep the option open

The current approach I am taking is c). From what I understand, Andrei, are you suggesting we go for a) or b)?

My comments also inline below.



On 2016/01/05 1:36, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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
> discussion.
> 
> In my view this is a principal point and I'd like to understand our
> position better.

Indeed and fair question.
I've tried to explain the situation above. Does this help or do you still have different views/concerns?

If so, it would be good to discuss this further.

>> 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.

Yes, I share this understanding. We are providing the principles as guideline, in order to help us consider implementation details. It is not to define an ideal (and possibly impractical, if go too much into ideals) 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.

I agree, and we are not trying to re-do things from scratch.
I certainly wouldn't want to define the perfect principles which would lead to impractical implementation.

>> 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?

I personally like this approach. I think this is efficient and pragmatic but I expect concerns to be expressed by some CWG members, that we are not considering all options flatly.
My initial thoughts were, we can agree on high level principles and framework, that would naturally lead us to a practical candidate of the IPR owner.

Snip from the notes I shared from the OCs IPR call.

      [Milestones to target completion of work by three OCs]
      Stage one (agree on principles and framework): 
      before the ICG & CCWG proposals submission to the NTIA (around Feb 2016)
      Stage two (complete implementation on IPR)   : 
      before the IANA contract expiry (Sep 2016)

I'm open to hear further feedback online and discuss this more at the coming CRISP call. 

Let me also share the last notes of the three OCs IPR call which took place on 15th Dec. I haven't heard explicit confirmation from other participants that they agree with my notes, hence have not yet shared the notes with the CRISP Team but I'll do that in another thread.

Izumi


> Andrei
>