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

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Dec 20 21:51:30 CET 2014


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: samedi, 20. décembre 2014 17:12
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva; ianaxfer at nro.net
>Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal:First >Draft
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>Do find inset...thanks
>
>>On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>
>>-----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
>>
>>>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.
>
>Relevant Items like the name IANA and iana.org right...yeah i get what you mean.
> However i would expect that if the functions does get moved to another
> organisation it logically includes those items 

Only if the new contract with ICANN specifies that those items would be included in the move.

>because it is with those items that the agreement were signed in the first place

Those items are not mentioned in the current agreement between the RIRs and ICANN.  So they have to be mentioned in the new contract, if you want to make it clear that they should be transferred to a new IANA functions operator.

> and the operator would not lay claims on them. 

As already mentioned, ICANN owns the trademark and the domain name, so it doesn't need to "lay claims on them".

>On the other hand in a worse/unlikely scenario when ICANN does, then it would 
>be that ICANN will have those items but will not be able to perform any functions
> with it...

Perhaps not. But it could charge money for their transfer to (or use by) a new IANA functions operator.

>I think it would then be important to determine whether performing the IANA
> functions as (new name) EXAMPLE in location example.org would be a big
> deal (personally don't think so)

That's a different argument.  Which is worth discussing. 

SNIP

>By my statement above i meant the property sense of ownership (one may argue
> there is a difference between renting and purchasing a property);

Owners of intellectual property, and of domain names, have considerable rights over those items.  I don't see that the distiction between "renting" and "purschasing" is relevant in this context.

> I think i will put this in context that ICANN is currently empowered at the moment
> to do that as the IANA operator and that is what the current draft
> is also reflecting.

It is not only empowered to do that as the moment. It will also be empowered to do that in the future, unless the new contract between the RIRs and ICANN says otherwise.

>> 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.
>
>Actually in a scenario where its a community that pulls out, i think it may be
> neater to not even use the name IANA and iana.org any longer. 

Again, that's a different discussion.

In fact, one could argue that the mark IANA and the domain name IANA.ORG need not be used right now for IP addresses: the relevant information could be published on the NRO web site.

>>>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.
>
>I think thats fine for the ICG to consider,

The ICG will not develop contract language. They will simply compile the proposals from the operating communities and verify that they are consistent and coherent.

So if the RIRs want something about intellectual property rights, then the RIRs have to propose actual language.

>> but  they should be mindful of how this is worded so as not to indirectly
>> restrict a community from using another name/url when its become
>> absolutely necessary. 

Correct, that is a matter of drafting.
 
SNIP





More information about the ianaxfer mailing list