[NRO-IANAXFER] IPR considerations in the RIRs submission to the ICG

Andrei Robachevsky andrei.robachevsky at gmail.com
Mon Jan 5 10:12:13 CET 2015

Dear Seun,

Seun Ojedeji wrote on 03/01/15 23:27:
> Hello Andrei,
> I just like to make a minor comment; why can't similar text used to
> protect content also be used to protect the trademark and domain name? I
> think what is important in this process is to ensure that the trademark
> can be accessed/transferred upon need. So I would suggest something
> similar to below:
> "It is the expectation of the RIR communities that the IANA trademark
> and the IANA.ORG <http://iana.org/> domain name will continue to be
> accessible and also transferable from the current operator whenever
> required to
> ensure these asset continue to be used purposefully in non discriminative
> manner for the benefit of all operational communities."

Yes, this is an option. I think the main requirement is, as Hans Petter
Holen wrote, the rights to the registry content and other IPR should be
with the community, not the IANA operator. We noted support for a more
clear resolution of this issue.

> However if this community achieve consensus towards transferring to
> Trust then it will be interesting to see names community recognise "IETF
> trust" as an independent entity. I also did not observe the IETF
> proposal indicating such transfer as an action item in this process
> (especially as IETF can be said to have more liability on this matter)


> Thanks for the update.
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.



> On 2 Jan 2015 17:27, "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei.robachevsky at gmail.com
> <mailto:andrei.robachevsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Dear colleagues,
>     The discussion on the IANAXFER mailinlist helped the CRISP team to
>     identify the following IPR issues related to "IANA" trademark, the
>     "IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG>" domain name, and any databases related
>     to the performance of
>     the IANA function.
>     Please find below a brief description of these issues along with a
>     general position the CRISP team are considering for the inclusion in the
>     response.
>     Please provide your feedback to help us to identify level of support for
>     these positions.
>     Regards,
>     Andrei
>     *Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/Content of the Registries*
>     ---------------------------------------------------
>     In accordance with the current NTIA contract (section H.4 Rights in
>     Data-Special works,
>     http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf)
>     the US Government has unlimited rights in all data delivered under this
>     contract and in all data first produced in the performance of this
>     contract.
>     It is important that through the stewardship transition the IPR status
>     of the registries is clear and ensures free unlimited access to the
>     public registry data.
>     We propose to state that it is the expectation of the RIR communities
>     that the public number resource registries are in the public domain. It
>     is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant parties
>     acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>     *Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/IANA trademark and IANA.ORG
>     <http://IANA.ORG> domain*
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>     Currently ICANN owns the IANA trademark with the US PTO and holds the
>     IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> domain.
>     A preference is that both are associated with the IANA function and not
>     with a particular IANA functions operator. Having a permanent place,
>     which would hold these assets, not associated with an IANA operator,
>     will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or
>     operators) be selected some time in the future.
>     Moreover, since all operational communities are making own arrangements
>     regarding the IANA functions operator it is conceivable that in the
>     future multiple IANA operators will exist.
>     We propose to state that it is the expectation of the RIR communities
>     that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> domain
>     name will be transferred
>     to an entity independent from the IANA functions operator that will
>     ensure these assets will be used purposefully in non discriminative
>     manner for the benefit of all operational communities.
>     There were several suggestions on the IANAXFER mailinglist that one of
>     the possible entities could be the IETF Trust
>     (http://trustee.ietf.org/index.html).
>     *Issue: Intellectual Property Rights/IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains*
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>     Contrary to the issue related to IANA.ORG <http://IANA.ORG> domain,
>     the holdership of the
>     above domains is with the IAB, aligned with the policy for these
>     registries specified in RFC3172 "Management Guidelines & Operational
>     Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area Domain
>     ("arpa")". Specifically, these zones are delegated to IANA by the
>     Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and “[s]ub-delegations within this
>     hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address
>     allocation practices” (RFC3172).
>     Given the status of these domains and sub-domains below and also taking
>     into account that this service is outside the scope of the NTIA
>     contract, we did not identify any IPR issues that need to be covered in
>     the response.
>     _______________________________________________
>     ianaxfer mailing list
>     ianaxfer at nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer at nro.net>
>     https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150105/4b83c55d/signature.asc>

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list