[CRISP-TEAM] [Reminder: Comment on SLA close today 2nd June ] Re: Call for comments from the CRISP Team Re: first draft review of the SLA v1.0

[Craig Ng]

Dear Izumi and colleagues

My apologies for not seeing these queries earlier. Here is my response
(speaking for myself, from my own understanding, without having had the
opportunity to consult my other RIR legal colleagues).

>---
>12.1.1
>To the extent that the Operator possesses rights in and to any
>intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights,
>trademarks and service marks,
>related to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement,
>Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title and
>interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their
>successors, assigns and designee.
>
>Question:
>Would it be a correct in interpreting that the intellectual property
>rights transfer to RIRs, including trademarks and service marks?
>If this interpretation is correct, we observe inconsistency from the
>numbers proposal which says trademark and service marks to be transfered
>to public domain, and not to the RIRs.
>
># If my this interpretation is incorrect, no need to make this comment
>---

Izumi - the intention is that any successor operator will have the ability
to continue to provide the services without restriction caused by a lack
of intellectual property rights that are held by the first operator.

This clause requires the first operator to assign and transfer all such
necessary rights to "RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees". It is
intentionally a broad clause, which means that the rights are to be
transferred to a person nominated by the RIRs. This need not be (but could
be) the RIRs. The IETF Trust, for example, would fall within the scope of
the "RIRs' designees", by way of example.

At the end of the day, some legal entity would need to hold such rights.
So, this clause is intentionally broad, to ensure maximum flexibility.

>I personally still have a question about 11.1 as below.
>However, since this is not covered in the numbers proposal, it probably
>is not appropriate to cover it in the comment as the CRISP Team, to be
>submitted to the NRO EC.
>I am putting it here again, in case anyone from RIRs is able to clarify
>this question but there is no need to reflect it as the CRISP review of
>the SLA.
>
>1.1
>The Operator shall prepare a plan for this purpose and submit this plan
>to the RIRs (18) months after the date of this Agreement.
>
>Question:
>Would it be a correct interpretation that it is set after 18 months, to
>give time for the Operator for the preparation?
>If yes, it would be helpful to understand whether there is not a need to
>set a limit of period in completing the preparation, in case it does not
>get completed unless the period is specified.

The answer is yes - the idea is that the operator will have some time (way
ahead of any contract renewal or expiration) to prepare a so-called
"transition-out" plan.

I am not sure if I understand your follow-up question correctly Izumi. The
clause 11.1 (to which I believe you intend to refer) is intended to
require the operator to have a fully-completed plan within 18 months, that
meets all the requirements set out in clause 11.1. It is not intended that
the 18 month period is just a starting point for negotiations. Does this
resolve your concern Izumi?

I hope this clarifies your queries.

Regards
Craig

_______________________________________________________
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: craig at apnic.net
p: +61 7 3858 3152
m: +61 416 052 022
www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________

Join the conversation:   https://blog.apnic.net/
_______________________________________________________



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150603/b01f70bd/smime.p7s>