[CRISP-TEAM] Possible inconsinstency pointed out on IRP for Section III A2 and IIIA3

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/01/15 8:56, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> I think this is good overall and for the unresolved issues you listed -
>>
>>> * III.A.2 talks about IPR being transferred to a successor organization,
>>> but III.A.3.ix does not.
>>
>> I personally think it's OK. III.A.2 can be detailed by III.A.3.ix is
>> providing guidance for RIR in developing SLA and looks to me like an
>> obvious point which will be incoporated as it is specified in III.A.2.
>>
>> As long as they don't contradict, it's fine in my view.
>>
>> I'd like to hear especially from RIR staff, if other thoughts.
>>
>>> * III.A.3.ix talks about IPR being transferred to the RIRs,
>>> but III.A.2 does not.
>>
>> My comment above applies here as well but we shouldn't sound
>> contradicting. How about we make this part covering all IPR elements
>> described in III.A.2 and say who to be transfered should be decided
>> according to what's appropriate per IPR element?
>>
>> I welcome to hear feedback if anyone else has a better idea.
> 
> I like this idea.

Good to know Alan and welcome feedback from others as well.

>> OLD:
>> If the IANA Numbering Services Operator becomes the owner of 
>> intellectual property rights through the performance of this 
>> agreement, these rights will be transferred to the public domain, or 
>> to the RIRs, or to a suitable independent entity, such as the IETF 
>> Trust as contemplated in section III.A.2.
>>
>> NEW:
>> If the IANA Numbering Services Operator becomes the owner of 
>> intellectual property rights through the performance of this 
>> agreement, these rights will be transferred to the public domain, or 
>> to the RIRs, or to a suitable independent entity, such as the IETF 
>> Trust as according what would be appropriate for each element of IPR, 
>> which is described in section III.A.2.
> 
> I like the general idea of having III.A.3.ix defer to III.A.2 for 
> details about which types of intellectual property should be assigned to 
> which rights holders, so there is no inconsistency between the sections.
> 
> I am not sure about the exact text.  Perhaps somebody else can improve it.
> 

Yes. That would be very helpful, if someone could improve on the text.

Izumi