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

[Izumi Okutani]

Hello Paul,


Thank you for you comments. Noted and point taken that you agree with Andrei's comment we should only stick to the two high level principles.

At the same time, I see explicit suggestions to remove a few points from categories a) and b).
To understand your point, would you be happy with keeping other principles, or are you suggesting to limit the principles to just the two principles in the ICG proposal?


Izumi


On 2016/01/05 1:40, Paul Rendek wrote:
> Hello Izumi,
> 
> 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
> Services Operator),
>  
> - 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).
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
> 
>