[CRISP-TEAM] Observation on IPR
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Aug 13 10:48:10 CEST 2015
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.
>> - Scenario 3: consistent
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.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP