[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response/position: IANA IPR issues

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Dear colleagues,

Please find below a description for the IPR issues, along with the
proposed responses. The IPR issue covers database rights, trademarks as
well as IANA.ORG, IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains.

I hope this could facilitate discussion and help reaching team's
position on these issues.

Regards,

Andrei


*Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/Content of the Registries
---------------------------------------------------

*Background and rationale:

In accordance with the current NTIA contract (section H.4 Rights in
Data-Special works):

- The US Government has unlimited rights in all data delivered under
this contract and in all data first produced in the performance of this
contract.
- The Contractor shall not assert or authorize others to assert any
claim to copyright subsisting in any data first produced in the
performance of this contract without prior written permission of the
Contracting Officer.

It is important that as a result of the stewardship transition the IPR
status of the registries is clear and ensures free unlimited access to
the registry data.

*Proposed text in the response:

This is almost a copy and paste from the IETF response, since the issue
is exactly the same.

"It is the expectation of the RIR communities that the number resource
registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the RIR
communities that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of
the transition."


*Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain
---------------------------------------------------------------

*Background and rationale:

Currently ICANN owns the IANA trademark with the US PTO and holds the
IANA.ORG domain. The RIR communities expressed the preference that both
are associated with the IANA function and not with a particular IANA
functions operator. Having a permanent place, which would hold these
assets, not associated with an IANA operator, will facilitate a smooth
transition should another operator be selected some time in the future.

Considering the dependencies operational communities have on these
assents, the IETF Trust (http://trustee.ietf.org/index.html) has been
suggested as a logical place to hold them. This entity exists solely to
be a repository for intellectual property of this sort and it will
ensure that the trademark and the IANA.ORG domain are used purposefully
in non discriminative manner for the benefit of all operational
communities and independently of a specific IANA operator.

*Proposed text in the response:

Since all operational communities have interest in these assets and also
taking into consideration that no prior negotiations have been done with
the IETF Trust, the response cannot simply request that these assents
are transferred to the IETF Trust. So I propose the following text:

"It is the expectation of the RIR communities that the IANA trademark
and the IANA.ORG domain name will be transferred to an entity
independent from the IANA functions operator that will ensure these
assets will be used purposefully in non discriminative manner for the
benefit of all operational communities. The IETF Trust
(http://trustee.ietf.org/index.html) is the preference of the RIR
communities."


*Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains
---------------------------------------------------------------

*Background and rationale:

Contrary to the issue related to IANA.ORG domain the holdership of the
above domains is with the IAB, aligned with the policy for these
registries specified in RFC3172 "Management Guidelines & Operational
Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain
("arpa")". Specifically, these zones are delegated to IANA by the
Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and “[s]ub-delegations within this
hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address
allocation practices” (RFC3172).

*Proposed text in the response:

It is unclear to me if there are any IPR concerns from the RIR
communities associated with these domains. Especially since this service
is outside the scope of the NTIA contract. On a separate track, the
CRISP team may, along with the response, provide a recommendation that
an MoU between the RIRs and the IETF and IAB is created that will cover
the overlaps and express the mutual commitment to open and reliable
operation of the global registry system for the benefit of the community.

No specific text in the response.