[CWG-Stewardship] Update on IANA IPR

[Alan Greenberg]

Jonathan, two things.

1. I presume in point A you meant IFO not IFR.

2. On point C, Sharon understood that they were 
wrong on this when I pointed out that from the 
numbers community point of view, they would be 
contracting with ICANN and regardless of who 
ICANN sub-contracted to, ICANN was THEIR IFO. It 
is unfortunate that the memo was not altered to reflect that.

Alan

At 13/08/2015 03:52 PM, Jonathan Robinson 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