[CRISP-TEAM] Notes from the IPR call among the three Operational Communities (2015/12/15)

[Izumi Okutani]

Dear CRISP Team,


Below are the notes from the IPR call among the three Operational Communities on 15th Dec.
Note that I haven't heard explicit support for its contents from other participants, so there may be some changes.

I am planning to give a summary at the coming CRISP call but any questions/comments in advance are welcome as well!



Izumi


---
Participants:
CWG:
Co Chairs
 Jonathan Robinson 
 Lise Fuhr         

Chair of IPR Team
 Greg Shatan       

IAB/IETF:
 Andrew Sullivan 
 Jari Arkko (Partially joined)


RIRs/CRISP:
 Alan Barrett      
 Paul Wilson              
 Nurani Nimpuno
 Izumi Okutani     


1) Resources developed in each OC

Names: 
 - DT-IPR: DRAFT OF POTENTIAL PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNER OF IANA TRADEMARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES
   (14th Dec Draft shared by Greg)
   Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGSlKj-JSXe4T0wWv-hN6srDVOwhRJvQZzRpkGAAPk8/edit?pref=2&pli=1
 - Sidel

Protocols:
 - the framework : a short description of the kinds of relationships or contracts believed to be needed between the parties
   (It refers to the IETF Trust but likely to be generally applicable)
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gbPZgVdXAKIQKJRM1po6Nbod-6w

Numbers:
 - The CRISP IPR principles
 - The CRISP Team observation on IPR (on Sidley's report)


2) Timelines
At the call(15th Dec), there was an agreement about the target timelines:

  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)

 - Difference in opinions on how strongly the target must be met on the principles and framework, at the same time with the submission of the proposals to the NTIA
   "It would be elegant but not a must", "It is important NTIA has clarity"
 - No objection observed about the importance to complete the transition before the contract expiry


3) Comparison of outputs by each OC
Compare outputs by CWG DT-IPR, IANAPLAN and CRISP work

 - IANAPLAN: ?
 - CWG DT-IPR: ?
 - Comparison by the CRISP Team: Under work to compare DT-IPR and CRISP IPR principles (Tentative draft shared from Izumi already)
   The CRISP Team observes the framework shared on the IANAPLAN is consistent with the number community principles

4) How we coordinate our work
 - Parallel work can be accommodated (and have been observed to help in efficiency)
 - Priorities must be clear at the same time
   Be clear about which phased we are discussing: "principles" "framework""implementation"
   We target to agree on "principles" and "framework" at the same time as proposals submission to the NTIA

5) Suggested Next Steps
 * Agree on the high level principles 
   - Please share online, any comments, observations about the comparison I shared. I will update when the finalised version as the CRISP
   - Identify any principles which need further coordination
 * Discuss issues raised in scenario 3 of the Sidley's report
 * Start discussions on agreeable framework
 * Continue discussions on timeline

6) Draft agenda for the next call

 1. General status update from each OC (Names, Protocols, Numbers)
 2. Seek for agreement on high Level principles
 3. Issues raised in Scenario 3 of the Sidley's report
 4. Framework
 5. Target timeline (if any update)
 6. Next steps and the next call 
 7. AOB
---