[CRISP-TEAM] IP related to general data base rights Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you for giving this perspective Craig.

If everyone is comfortable, this sounds to me like a pragramatic
approach based on the exiting contract, with adding  "including
intellectual property rights"? if necessary.

How do others think about this approach?


Izumi

On 2014/12/29 7:55, Craig Ng wrote:
> On intellectual property rights, I think that it is an important point to
> consider. However, this should be considered within the broader context of
> "transition out" obligations. I think the focus should be on the overall
> maintenance of the security and stability of operations, rather than just
> on intellectual property rights. To simply focus on IPR may miss the
> bigger picture.
> 
> It may not be necessary, legally speaking, to insist on the transfer of
> all intellectual property rights. What is necessary is access to (ie. the
> right to use - for example, in a perpetual licence to use) all the
> intellectual property rights which are necessary to carry out the IANA
> functions, in the event that it becomes necessary to transition such
> services to a new operator in the future.
> 
> In the NTIA-ICANN IANA Functions Contract, there are already provisions
> that deas with transitioning to "Successor Contractor". I think the
> RIR-ICANN SLA can simply replicate these provisions. If necessary, the
> words "including intellectual property rights" can be added. See for
> reference:
> 
> 
> --8<-- (from NTIA-ICANN IANA Functions Contract)
> 
> 	
> 		
> 		
> 	
> 	
> 		
> 			
> 				
> 					C.7.3 Transition to Successor Contractor ��� In the event the
> Government selects a successor
> contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning
> each of the IANA functions
> to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security
> of operations. The
> plan shall be submitted to the COR eighteen (18) months after date of
> contract award,
> reviewed annually, and updated as appropriate.
> 
> ...
> 
> 	
> 		
> 		
> 	
> 	
> 		
> 			
> 				
> 					I.61 52.237-3 CONTINUITY OF SERVICES ...
> 
> 					(a) The Contractor recognizes that the services under this contract
> are vital to the Government
> and must be continued without interruption and that, upon contract
> expiration, a successor,
> either the Government or another contractor, may continue them. The
> Contractor agrees to --
> 
> 					(1) Furnish phase-in training; and
> 
> 					(2) Exercise its best efforts and cooperation to effect an orderly
> and efficient transition
> to a successor.
> 				
> 			
> 		
> 	
> 
> 
> 				
> 			
> 		
> 	
> --8<--
> 
> 
> Craig
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> Craig Ng
> General Counsel, APNIC
> e: craig at apnic.net
> p: +61 7 3858 3152
> m: +61 416 052 022
> www.apnic.net
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26/12/2014 1:57 am, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
>> CRISP Team,
>>
>>
>> Richard Hill is raising Intellectual property right from two aspects.
>> Active discussions are taking place on the latter but not on the former,
>> related to database rights.
>>
>>
>> (snip)> Can you guide us why we need to add the Intellectual Property
>> Rights
>>> amendment?
>>
>> In my opinion, yhere are two types of intellectual property rights that
>> might be an issue.  The first is sui generis data base rights that ICANN
>> might have regarding the top-level allocations that it publishes.  The
>> second is the use of the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name.
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>> We are likely to need long discussions if we go into details of who
>> carries the rights of information/physical equipment which includes data.
>>
>> My initial impression, while not being an expert in this area, is that
>> the right of contents of data should go to the IANA operator at that
>> time. If the operator changes, the right is to be transfered to the new
>> operators. I'm saying this based on the concept of esclow agent but I
>> may be out of focus and would appreciate expert advice.
>>
>> Any suggestion on how we approach and address this issue?
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
>> Proposal:First Draft
>> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:07:12 +0100
>> From: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
>> Reply-To: <rhill at hill-a.ch>
>> To: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
>> CC: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, <ianaxfer at nro.net>
>>
>> Please see below.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Richard
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lordmwesh at gmail.com [mailto:lordmwesh at gmail.com]On Behalf Of
>>> Mwendwa Kivuva
>>> Sent: vendredi, 19. d���cembre 2014 10:17
>>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
>>> Cc: Izumi Okutani; ianaxfer at nro.net
>>> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
>>> Proposal:First Draft
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2014 at 11:32, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>>> In the sentence "The agreement would include specific requirements for
>>>> performance and reporting commensurate with current mechanisms, ...",
>>> I
>>>> would propose to add intellectual property rights, so that it would
>>> read
>>>> "The agreement would include specific requirements for performance and
>>>> reporting, and intellectual property rights, commensurate with current
>>>> mechanisms, ..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Can you guide us why we need to add the Intellectual Property Rights
>>> amendment?
>>
>> In my opinion, yhere are two types of intellectual property rights that
>> might be an issue.  The first is sui generis data base rights that ICANN
>> might have regarding the top-level allocations that it publishes.  The
>> second is the use of the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name.
>>
>> It seems to me that the new contract should cover those issues.
>>
>>> To my understanding, IP rights may be between IETF and the
>>> IANA function operator.
>>
>> Yes, there may also be intellectual property rights of interest to the
>> IETF,
>> but that does not mean that there are not rights that may be of interest
>> to
>> the RIRs.
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> ______________________
>>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>>>
>>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
>>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp