[CRISP-TEAM] Observation on IPR

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi Andrei and all,

Thank you for these comments. Very helpful. 

> On 13 aug 2015, at 09:53, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

This is a very good point. Thanks for adding that.

> 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.

I am not an IPR lawyer, so I don’t know what this legal arrangement would look like. But I very much agree with your principle. 

(If doable, this might also alleviate concerns some hold in the names community.)

>> * 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.

Indeed. Maybe we should state this clearly.
> 
>>   - 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.

Indeed.

> 
>>   - Scenario 3: consistent
>> 
> 
> Agree.

Thanks again Andrei. 

A quick additional point from me. 

I think it is also worth noting as a general point that the Sidley report is carried out only from a names perspective and looking at potential advantages and disadvantages to that community. It might be obvious, but it could be good to state it clearly, as there is a plethora of other factors to consider for the other communities. 


Thanks,
Nurani


> 
> Andrei
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp