[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Jonathan Robinson]

Thanks Milton,

 

Point #2 is clearly fundamental if we want to stay on the current time track
and the current time track seems to be widely acknowledged to be a necessary
condition to affect the transition within the current political window.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu] 
Sent: 13 August 2015 23:21
To: jrobinson at afilias.info; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

 

Jonathan

I think this is an appropriate and reasonable approach to the situation
right now. In particular I am very happy that the co-chairs recognize points
#2 (don't send an OC into another process), A (CRISP proposal as backstop),
and C (Sidley interpretation about compatibility of CRISP and ICANN holding
the IPR is incorrect). 

 

As an ICG member I look forward to receiving CWG comments subject to the
constraints you specify. I do believe ICG got it right when it said that we
have a compatible situation as long as CWG does not arrive at a consensus
position against what was proposed by CRISP. It would probably be most
constructive for CWG to propose specific additions or details to the
proposal of IETF Trust as home for the IPR that would address the problems
that some of our CWG members have raised, rather than trying to push us all
back to the drawing board. 

 

>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

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150814/f3511d77/attachment-0001.html>