[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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jun 3 10:54:38 CEST 2015

On 2015/06/03 17:37, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 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).

Yes. How you described it is consistent with my understanding of how I would expect the implementation be, to be consistent with the numbers proposal.

> 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
> SLA)."
> 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.

Yes, I think I am confused about the same part.


More information about the CRISP mailing list