[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft

[Izumi Okutani]

Andrei,


This is another point made related Intellectual propertly rights.

It is about in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa which we had already discussed 
within the CRISP team, in terms of relationships with the IETF.

Seeing this is not totally a new topic and we had already agreed on the 
relationship with the IETF and IANA, as described in our proposal,

I wonder if you wouldn't mind to also cover this comment, in summarizing 
how we consider this as CRISP Team?


Please let me know if you have any issues in working on this (related to 
reverse zones), together with other IPR issues you had volunteered to 
work on.


Regards,
Izumi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship 
Proposal:First Draft
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:41:52 -0800
From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
Reply-To: andrew.dul at quark.net
To: ianaxfer at nro.net

On 12/20/2014 4:07 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> 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.

What about any 'rights' to in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa?  Those two domains
are critical to the daily operations of the RIRs.  It would seem at the
moment that those domains are held by the IETF, and thus would be
covered under the protocols response to the ICG?

Andrew


>> 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.
>



_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer