[CRISP-TEAM] Observation on IPR

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Hi Izumi,

I like the approach and agree with the main points. A few comments inline.

Izumi Okutani wrote on 12/08/15 12:09:
[...]

I suggest that or the historical perspective we put our stress on the
point below:

>    - the root of the IANA functions comes from the IETF RFCs, so the IETF to hold the IPRs for the community. they have a decicated trust to manage the mark.
> 

As I mentioned on the call, I think it'd also be useful to reflect on
the rationale behind the principle related to the IPRs in the numbers
proposal: to move these assets to a stable place independent from an IFO
to facilitate smooth transition to a possible successor, or successors.
Absence of this element will weaken the accountability mechanism
proposed by the numbers community.

Following this consideration, I'd like to observe that it is the
community that should designate a licensee for the use of the IANA
related IPRs (exactly the way they would choose an IFO for their
function), and not the entity that holds the IPRs (e.g. the IETF Trust).
IMO, the role of that entity should be limited to being a "container"
and exercising quality control.

> * Observations about Sidley's scenarios
>    - Scenario 1: not consistent since RIRs are signing the contract with ICANN. ICANN would not be an organization independent of IFO

I think ICANN *is* the IFO from the numbers perspective, as it stands now.

>    - Scenario 2: not consistent since PTI is IFO itself

The PTI is ICANN's (IFO's) contractor for the provision of the services,
which makes even less sense to grant any IPR to it.

>    - Scenario 3: consistent
> 

Agree.

Andrei