[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


I observe the discussions on the ianaxfer list is very much in line with
our intention, and there is support/no objections for the joint
statement with the IETF.

There is one point I do like to clarify on the ianaxfer list.

I agree with discussions on the list about:
1) Transfer of IPR on the IANA trademark and iana.org from existing
operator is expected but not a must before the transition
2) The IETF Trust is an acceptable option to transfer these rights but
it is not the only option, and should be acceptable for all operational
communities. (Not a must to define before the transition)


What I meant by "must" is:

3) It is intended to be the must that we clarify, in SLA, in case of
change in the IANA operator, IPR does not stay with the existing IANA
operator

 - This is to make sure that ICANN does not keep the IPR in case we
   change the IANA operator

If I recall correctly, this is something we confirmed when we had
dicussions with the IETF folks in Singapore.

I would like to share my observation above and clarify about point 3),
if this is consistent with interpretation of the CRISP Team.

Please let me know if you have a different understanding.

At the same time, it is not clearly stated that way in our proposal - a
related description was in version 2 of our proposal but was specifying
RIRs as the entities to tranfer IPR, which was why we change the
description in the updated proposal.




Izumi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:13:44 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
CC: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, ianaxfer at nro.net <ianaxfer at nro.net>

On Feb 11, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Seun Ojedeji
<seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
I am not sure the numbers proposal implied a "MUST". I quote the
relevant text below(with attention to the bold part):

With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://iana.org/>
domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both
are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a
particular IANA Numbering Services Operator.......It is the preference
of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to
these expectations as part of the transition

Based on above, one could argue that there seem to be some room for
flexibility in the proposal. So maybe replacing the must in your
statement with "preference" could be more ideal.

Excellent point.

In reading through the proposal again, it appears that it is not quite
as clear in
specifying actual requirements, as opposed to the implementation
preferences -
this could be behind some of the perception of “incompatible” proposals.

The proposal reads:

"With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG<http://IANA.ORG>
domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both
are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a
particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. "

The phrase “associated with IANA Number Services” could be read a number
of ways,
for example,  it could be support the view that the mark and domain
should be held by
some entity related to the Regional Internet Registries (which I do not
really believe was
the intent, since the mark and domain also serve the name and protocol
communities.
Such a reading would also not support the suggestion of having the mark
transferred
to the IETF Trust.

Is the actual requirement that the mark should, at time of stewardship
transition, be held
in a manner that makes certain it is available for use today and in the
future by all of those
involved in the IANA registries, whether policy or operations?  That
seems to be the intent
behind sentence which follows -  “Identifying an organization that is
not the IANA  Numbering
Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will
facilitate a smooth
transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the
future.”

Would it be correct to respond that the expectation is for any
arrangement which makes
the mark available today and in the future by all of those involved in
the number registry?
(This could be nearly any party, as long as there is appropriate and
durable licensing…)

/John