[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Dec 20 15:57:36 CET 2014


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: samedi, 20. décembre 2014 15:22
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva; ianaxfer at nro.net
>Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First Draft
>
>>On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Can you guide us why we need to add the Intellectual Property Rights
>>> amendment?
>>
>>In my opinion, yhere are two types of intellectual property rights that
>>might be an issue.  The first is sui generis data base rights that ICANN
>>might have regarding the top-level allocations that it publishes. 
>
>I don't know what "sui generis" is

Creators of databases don't typically have copyrights, but they may have other types of rights.

>so muting on that, my response will be that i think the rights in this 
>context will be as defined in global policies/agreement. 

Yes and no.  If the relevant contracts don't specify otherwise, then ICANN may have, by law, certain intellectual property rights.  And the ICANN Board might be legally bound to defend those rights.

>Perhaps you care to give a scenario on how intellectual property rights can come
> to the rescue 

It's not a question of "coming to the rescue".  It is question of ensuring that the relevant items can continue to be used appropriately even if the IANA function is, at some time in the future, no longer performed by ICANN, but by some other organization.

>when/if for instance ICANN intentionally decides not to allocate IP resource
> from the IANA pool (database). 

That's not the issue. The issue is how to publish the top level assignments currently published by ICANN if, for some reason, the IANA function is moved to some other entity.

>I am not a lawyer so there may be something i am missing....because i can't
> seem to connect the dot

Does the above help?

>>The second is the use of the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name.
>
>I think using a scenario may help me here; perhaps a wild one could be that
> IANA operator (ICANN) decide that iana.org is her property.

This is not a wild scenario, it is the current reality.  ICANN owns the registered trademark IANA, and it owns the domain name IANA.ORG.

> If that happens, i would expect that the RIR community will only have
> to worry about setting up a new url and space (and then also determine 
>if existing processes needs to be reviewed to ensure information is properly
>published).

Indeed one option is that the RIRs could stop using the domain name IANA.ORG and stop making any references to "IANA".

Another option is that the new contract between the RIRs and ICANN specifies that the RIRs could continue to use the mark IANA and the domain name IANA.ORG if their part of the IANA function is transferred to some entity other than ICANN.

>Generally i don't think adding that phrase in the agreement

I'm not suggesting to add that phrase in the final contract between the RIRs and ICANN.  The phrase in question outlines items for which detailed language should be developed for the final contract.

> strengthens or protect anything, as infact it may bring different meaning
> to how the IP resource is viewed...plus we may need to have to define
> what international property rights mean. 

Intellectual property, not international property.  I think that the term "intellectual property" is well enough understood.

>The other complication is that IANA trademark is not used by RIRs alone neither
> is iana.org so i don't know how the RIRs will claim trademark autonomy/authority.

I didn't suggest that the RIRs would claim trademark autonmy/authority.

All I have suggested to date is that the final contract should address the intellectual property issues, for example by including a clause to the effect that ICANN would agree to allow use, for free, of the IANA mark and the IANA.ORG domain name, by any future entity which was contracted, by the RIRs, to perform the IANA function.

> The RIRs IMO (in this context) would/should be concerned about ability to
> effectively manage IP resource globally and that alone

Indeed.  But isn't the publication of the information on the IANA web site part of that ability?





More information about the ianaxfer mailing list