[NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
L Sean Kennedy
liam at fedney.org
Mon Jan 12 23:38:23 CET 2015
Izumi and others,
I generally support the 2nd draft and agree with the elements listed in
section III.A. Like Andrew I wish there was more time to comment, but
given the short timeframe I do express my admiration to CRISP team and
those who contributed substantive comments.
In III.A.2. "IPR related to the provision of the IAN services" IANA
trademark, IANA.ORG are proposed to be transferred to the IETF Trust to
"stay with the community," but in III.A.3. ix the rights to any
intellectual property should be transferred to the "public domain" or
RIRs." Although the latter IP may not be related to the provision, I think
cosmetically there could be better consistency between the two sections.
I welcome the section (III.B) which the RIRs have asked the NRO NC to
undertake a review of their documented accountability and governance
mechanisms. I assume such a review would be made public and if so, I think
it would benefit the document to say so.
2015-01-12 14:36 GMT-05:00 Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>:
> On 1/8/2015 7:44 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> > Thank you for those who have shared your input to the our second draft
> > proposal already. I very much appreciate your attention to this and to
> > have provided your comments early. This is helpful for our consideration.
> > As you are aware, the timeline for the next step in developing the final
> > proposal to the ICG is very short and we would like to be as effective
> > as possible in considering your inputs.
> > For your reference, following are a few points which would be helpful
> > when sharing your input, for the CRISP Team to understand your position
> > adequately and effectively during this short period.
> > * Do you generally support the concept of each of the proposed
> > elements listed in Section III A (1)-(4) (*)
> > (While you may have additional inputs about some details)
> Yes, I support the current draft.
> Thank you for incorporating my feedback on the 1st draft into the 2nd
> draft of the document.
> While I lament the limited time frame for discussion of this draft, I
> believe the time was well spent. I furthermore believe that it would be
> to the advantage of the number resource community to continue this
> discussion of the elements of this draft response at the next RIR
> meetings. I encourage the RIR staff to take the final draft of the ICG
> response and prepare communication documents to summarize and engage
> discussion with the members of the RIRs.
> I appreciate those who spent the time to read and review the draft. I
> would have hoped for more discussion, but the time allowed did not
> appear to permit more discussion.
> I also agree with the CRISP team's assessment that details of the legal
> contract are best to _not_ be included in this RFP response and should
> be determined at a later time. I would also like to suggest that the
> first instance of the "review committee" as defined in the RFP might be
> called to review the initial draft contract between the RIRs and the
> IANA contractor. Furthermore, in continuing with the open processes of
> the Internet community I would hope that the review committee in their
> work of finalizing the initial contract between the RIRs and the IANA
> contractor would consult the community on the content of the contract.
> I do not believe that the community should or needs to approve the
> contract language itself, but input on that process will likely provide
> additional value to the Internet community.
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ianaxfer