[CRISP-TEAM] Review of SLA ver.2

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks Andrei.

I agree and helpful addition - 
That would add more clarity the reasons and intention behind it, and provide guidance to the RIR legal team on how specifically to address it.

I reflected it as attached, with addition of the words in * for more clarity: an independent entity *from the IFO* 


Izumi

On 2015/08/31 23:08, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Izumi,
> 
> Thank you for putting this together. One editorial suggestion (assuming
> it emerged from my comments):
> 
>> Further, it is necessary to have clear definition ...
> 
> Further, it is necessary to have a clear definition of the term
> "Intellectual Property Assets", especially because different types of
> assets are involved:
> - IANA trademark, IANA.ORG domain that are to be transferred to an
> independent entity as part of the transition,
> - public registry data that should be in the public domain, and
> - any other data and IP assets that will be assigned to the RIRs (or
> their successors, assigns and designees).
> 
> Andrei
> 
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 31/08/15 15:40:
>> Thanks for your comments Nurani, Andrei.
>>
>> I reflected both of your comments and brushed up some lanaguage in the attached word file.
>>
>> I made one change from the observation I shared - I deleted that 12.2 is consistent could be inconsistent with the number community propoposal, as I read this section as describing any intellectual property rights which arises in the future through providing the IANA Numbering Services, which is not the details we have convered in the proposal. I do not see it would cause any inconsistencies in describing its details.
>>
>> Other than that and reflecting Andrei and Nurani's comments on IPR, I have made no changes.
>>
>> If I hear no further feedback until UTC21:00 today, 31st Aug, I will send the attached document with the announcement below to the ianaxfer at nro.net list.
>> I continue to welcome editorial comments until the above time.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> -------
>> Dear NRO,
>>
>>
>>
>> The CRISP Team appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the 2nd draft of the SLA for the IANA Numbering Services.
>>
>> We believe the process of calling for comment for the 2nd draft, and a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the legal team responses demonstrates transparency in the process of preparing implementation of the proposal. We thank the RIR legal team and NRO EC for taking these steps.
>>
>> In reviewing the 2nd version of the SLA from the perspectives described below, the CRISP Team observe that the draft SLA is consistent with the number community proposal. 
>>
>>  - CRISP Team comment for SLA ver.1 are adequately addressed
>>  - No consistencies with the number community proposal over additional edits for SLA ver.2
>>
>> Please see attached document for details of the observation by the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of the SLA.
>>
>> In terms of the process, we agree with the future steps described in the draft SLA as below:
>>
>> "All comments received by the deadline will be processed by the legal team of the RIRs and, as
>> appropriate, included in a further and final draft of the SLA which will be presented to ICANN as
>> the proposed final SLA. It is hoped that this document will be agreed by ICANN without further
>> changes."
>>
>> Further, the CRISP Team expects the final SLA to remain consistent with the number community proposal, given consultation process has taken place, including feedback from the ICANN Board.
>> The CRISP Team has confidence that the NRO maintains and continues the process to be accountable to the number community throughout the implementation and expects the NRO to have clarity in the process for the number community, beyond negotiation with ICANN.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>> Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno
>> Chair and Vice Chair, the CRISP Team
>>
>>
>> On 2015/08/31 17:16, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>>> Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 31/08/15 07:47:
>>>>>> The only part I would like to have more clarity is on the itellectual property rights.
>>>>>> It wasn't clear to me whether the clauses in 12.1.1 and 12.2 will allow an organization independent from IFO to hold the IANA trade mark and iana.org domain, not a a license from RIRs/ICANN.
>>>> The text says "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust” so it clearly states the RIRs or the IETF trust. 
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, as the proposal only suggests the IETF trust as one alternative, the SLA text could be softened to speak about the IETF Trust or the neutral trust holding the IPRs (or something or rather).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agree.
>>>
>>> I also wonder if a proper definition of the "Intellectual Property
>>> Assets" is necessary.
>>>
>>> I'd personally like to see a more clear distinction between the IANA
>>> trademark, IANA.ORG domain that are to be transferred to an independent
>>> entity as part of the transition, public registry data that should be in
>>> the public domain and any other data and IP assets that will be assigned
>>> to the RIRs (or their successors, assigns and designees).
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The CRISP Team comments on the Second Draft SLA_2 .docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21133 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150901/12efbee3/TheCRISPTeamcommentsontheSecondDraftSLA_2-0001.docx>