[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

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Wed Jun 3 10:37:03 CEST 2015


Izumi Okutani wrote on 03/06/15 06:15:
> 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.

I agree with Izumi, that if that's the meaning, the provision is
inconsistent with the Proposal.

My reading of 12.1.1 was that it covered the IPRs and trademarks
(whatever they are), excluding the IANA, IANA.ORG and the public
registry data. These have to be transferred to the IETF Trust as part of
the implementation of the proposal, so the Operator doe not possess them
at the time of signing the SLA. And there must be some agreement that
the public registry data are in the public domain (or whatever legal
arrangement covers it).

That is why the comment we provided was: "References in the numbers
community proposal to arrangements for ownership of the IANA trademark
and iana.org domain are not within scope for this SLA. Such arrangements
will need to be documented and implemented in other agreements between
all of the relevant actors (which include more than the parties to this

But Craig's reply confused me. Craig you seem to imply that the
transition will actually be implemented under this SLA and that the IETF
Trust will be the RIRs designee. I do not think that this is what the
community expects.


More information about the CRISP mailing list