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

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Of course, Izumi, thank you for bringing this up.

Andrei

Izumi Okutani wrote on 29/12/14 16:16:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp