[CRISP-TEAM] Two issues: IPR and all-together-as-one recontracting

[Bill Woodcock]

There are two issues that I’d like to propose text for.

The first issue is the one surrounding transfer of IPR.  My understanding of the issue is that the holder of the trademark must be one and the same as the provider of the trademarked services in order for trademark law to provide protection.  IANAL, so I don’t speak to this issue from personal expertise, just the feedback we received from someone who is a lawyer, and my understanding of the same issue as dealt with by the National Parks Service in the United States in dealing with their concessionaires, in a very similar circumstance to ours.

Our current language reads:

III.A.2.        IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community

There are several intellectual properties related to the provision of the IANA services whose status should be clarified as part of the transition: the IANA trademark, the IANA.ORG domain name, and public databases related to the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, including the IANA Numbers Registries.

It is important that the IPR status of the registries remains clear and ensures free and unrestricted access to the public registry data throughout the stewardship transition. It is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that the IANA Number Registries are in the public domain.

It is also the expectation of the Internet Number Community that non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator and will be transferred to its successor(s). All rights on non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services must be transferred to the RIRs.

It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.

With regards to the IANA trademark and the 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. 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. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.

The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.

I propose substituting the following language, wherein the new portions are highlighted in red, and deleted text is, uh, deleted:

III.A.2.        IPR related to the provision of the IANA services

There are several intellectual properties related to the provision of the IANA services whose status should be clarified as part of the transition: the IANA trademark, the IANA.ORG domain name, and public databases related to the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, including the IANA Numbers Registries.

It is important that the IPR status of the registries remains clear and ensures free and unrestricted access to the public registry data throughout the stewardship transition. It is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that the IANA Number Registries are in the public domain.

Non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, will be protected and managed by the IANA Functions Operator and will be transferred to its successor(s) simultaneously with any transition, unencumbered and at no cost. All rights on non-public information related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services must be transferred to the RIRs.

With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that, over the long term, both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. The IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name will be protected and managed by the IANA Functions Operator and will be transferred to its successor(s) simultaneously with any transition, unencumbered and at no cost, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community.

 It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.

I also propose that the bullet-point immediately under III.A. be truncated to simply read “• IPR related to the provision of the IANA services;”

While I am not one, we do have lawyers credentialed in different jurisdictions among us; perhaps they could provide constructive criticism with regard to this issue, or my proposed resolution.

The second issue is one just conveyed to me by Joe Alhadheff, apparently informally on behalf of the business community, ICC BASIS.  He asked, in effect: “If the five RIRs are individual signatories to a contract with ICANN, how do you deal with the case of some individual RIRs choosing not to renew with ICANN, while others do?”  I replied that I believed that it was our unspoken intention that all five RIRs would act together, coordinated through the NRO, and stay or shift as one.  He replied that it would make the business community much more comfortable if we could say so explicitly.  Therefore, I propose the following text to be added as a new third-to-last paragraph under IV.A., regarding Continuity of Service:

Although the Intenet Number Community is represented by the five RIRs, which would each be signatories to the contract authorizing an IANA Function Operator, the Internet Number Community acts as a unified body; the five RIRs will collectively select a single IANA Function Operator and will not independently or individually engage in separate contracts for this service.

This paragraph would be inserted between the one beginning “The shift from…” and the one beginning “By building on…”

Thoughts?

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150302/4a2eb231/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150302/4a2eb231/signature.asc>