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

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Izumi, colleagues,

Izumi Okutani wrote on 29/12/14 18:57:
> Thank you Andrei in drafing the three points on intelletual property
> rights.
> 
> This lookes like a good start to make the text consistent with IETF's
> proposal while I welcome any other inputs from CRISP Team.
> 
> One point I'd like to understand is :
> 
>> The IETF Trust
>> (http://trustee.ietf.org/index.html) is the preference of the RIR
>> communities."
> 
> The rationale for RIR communities to prefer the IETF Trust.
> (I don't have an issue and simply would like to be clear why we propose
>  this)

The logic I captured from the ianaxfer discussions, which is also
consistent with my own understanding, is:
- It seems to be important that IANA.ORG and the IANA TM are tied to the
IANA function and should be transferred if the function moves to another
operator;
- Since all operational communities are making own arrangements
regarding the IANA functions operator it is conceivable that in the
future multiple IANA operators will exist. For instance the RIRs may
decide to move away from ICANN to another entity for the IANA number
function, and the IETF and number community make different choices. In
this case a sensible approach would be to transfer these assets as part
of the current process to an entity, which is separate from the IANA
function operator.
- If we want to avoid creating new structures and also "consistent with
the history of the use of the IANA name" (Richard Hill), the IETF Trust
seems to be the best choice for this role.

Richard also responded on the ianaxfer list:

> Yes, and if the intellectual property rights are held by the IETF Trust, that would allow the operational entities to use the marks and the domain name as appropriate for the IANA functions.  By "operational entities" I mean the entities which perform one or more parts of the IANA funciton under delegation from the communities that have policy authority for one or more parts of the IANA function.
>  

I asked him to clarify this statement.

Regards,

Andrei