[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for the update,  i agree on the suggested way forward as it seem
reasonable enough. Hopefully some progress will be made by next week.

Just for my clarification, may i ask that you indicate the individuals that
constitute the group you refer?

Regards

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> Following the last CWG meeting, your co-chairs reached out to the chairs
> of the CRISP & IANAPLAN teams as well as the ICG chairs in order to discuss
> the overarching management of the IANA IPR issue. The purpose of the
> discussion was to focus, not on the substance of the issue, but rather to
> best understand the different backgrounds, the current status and the
> prospective routes forward, given where we are today.
>
>
>
> From the perspective of the co-chairs of the CWG, a number of key points
> emerge as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.      There seemed to be an overarching sensitivity to where we ALL are
> in the process and the requirement to not let this IANA IPR issue derail us
> from a “programme management” perspective.
>
> 2.      A second overarching point, directly related to 1 above, is the
> desire (and effectively a requirement) not to do anything which will
> necessitate change any of the three RFP responses such that this change
> would require one or more of the three RFP respondents (names, numbers,
> protocols) to have to go back through their respective community processes
> with the associated risk of delaying the transition.
>
> 3.      Through the current public comment period on the ICG proposal,
> there is the opportunity (for the CWG) to comment on the ICG proposal, but
> subject to 1 & 2 above.
>
>
>
> We also sought to better understand the various tracks of work (including
> that of the CWG) which have seen us arrive at this point and some of the
> detail in that work. Key points from that  include:
>
>
>
> A.     That there is a form of “backstop position” in the CRISP proposal
> that the IPR must not reside within the IFR in future. This underlying
> motivation derives from two points:
>
> a.      In order to facilitate a smooth potential future transition of
> the IANA function
>
> b.      To ensure that the IPR will be used in a non-discriminatory
> manner.
>
> B.     An underlying motivation was that the IPR should be held somehow
> “in trust” for future use by the relevant users of that IPR
>
> C.     That there seemed to be a strongly held view that the Sidley
> interpretation whereby ICANN could retain the IPR AND that this would be
> consistent with the CRISP proposal was not accurate.
> The argument presented being that ICANN is in fact the IANA Functions
> Operator, at least in in the case of numbers.
>
> D.     The IETF is willing to be the holder of the IPR in the IETF trust
> which is for the public benefit and the global internet society. Therefore
> no conflict is envisaged by having the IPR held within the IETF Trust.
>
>
>
> Finally, we considered some next steps / actions as follows:
>
>
>
> -        That the same group agree to talk again in approximately one week
>
> -        CRISP is likely to prepare and share some responses to the
> Sidley memo on IPR
>
> -        We can expect to see some further detail / information on the
> IETF Trust
>
> -        ICG & CRISP offers any knowledge, information and assistance
> that they can  reasonably provide
>
> -        A request for any guidance on timelines from the CWG
>
>
>
> In summary, it seems that we (the CWG) need to separate our prospective
> contribution to implementation from any comment we may wish to make now –
> effectively to the ICG proposal. For now, we need to focus our attention on
> the ICG document and the urgent requirement is to consider whether or not
> the ICG proposal is consistent with the responses received and, if not,
> what comment we wish to submit. Moreover, to be mindful that any such
> comment must not require any of the three RFP responses to be referred back
> to the relevant responding community if we are to retain the current
> overarching timetable. Put simply, what can usefully be done now and what
> can usefully be done later during the implementation phase.
>
>
>
> For your reference, we have included some relevant extracts from the CRISP
> response, the ICG proposal and the Sidley memo which we have used in
> thinking about this issue.
>
>
>
> Thank-you
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan & Lise
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150813/32e67ecb/attachment.html>