On 2004/12/07, Bob Kahn wrote:
I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate
for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we
will have to work out is the fact that there is considerable IP generated
over the past almost twenty years. At present, CNRI owns most of this IP,
but the US Government may have certain continuing rights in the data as well.
Dear Bob -
I think I'd like to address this issue since you've brought it up. In case
you haven't had a chance to read my interim report, you will find some more
details on this subject:
http://public.resource.org/adminrest/interim_report/
I was very careful in that report to give a variety of options that the
community might wish to pursue. However, there was one very concrete
recommendation:
"In my opinion, Foretec should make a copy of the source code and
regular dumps or phpmyadmin access to the IETF's datatracker available
to the IETF community as soon as possible."
Note the word "should" which has very precise meaning in the IETF.
As you know, I've spent a great deal of time looking into how the IETF
operates. As part of my due diligence, I read very carefully the
agreements that CNRI had with the US government, pulled the CNRI tax
returns, and looked at the financials you've furnished to the
IETF leadership. I went through a similar process with other
organizations involved, so I think I've got a pretty good feel for
how the IETF has been financed and operated over the past 18+
years.
My conclusion is pretty simple: CNRI and Foretec do *NOT* have any
ownership interest in "the IETF". You own your physical assets
such as computers, but you do not own any intellectual property
related to the IETF. None.
In the particular case of the datatracker, that has been developed
during a period where IETF meeting attendees have been paying in
around $2 million per year to CNRI. Those meeting fees paid for the
meeting and the operation of the IETF secretariat. We paid for that
datatracker and Al Vezza's repeated refusal to provide a dump of the
database to the IETF because of proprietary concerns is just plain wrong.
When I hear "ownership interests" get tangled up in the discussion of
how an international public community like the IETF will move
forward, I've got a problem. CNRI has operated the secretariat for
18 years, and everybody has repeatedly said how grateful the community
is for that service. But, it is just that: a service. Any
assets created were public assets and are held in trust for the
community.
For example, CNRI was kind enough to register ietf.org for the
community. But, you don't "own" that domain name. You registered
it on behalf of the community. Had you asserted ownership on that
name, I'm *sure* there would have been extended discussion of the
topic on the IETF list. The same goes for the trademark registration
you made for the term "IETF Secretariat": that is simply a prudent
defensive measure you did on behalf of the community to make
sure that "bad guys" didn't do things with the term.
As you know, I have committed publicly to working with the IETF on the
administrative restructuring issues. Over the coming year, I hope we can
work out how best to handle matters such these, but at best the document
ought to recognize this fact of life and that it will be necessary to
address these matters in due course going forward.
The "fact of life" is that the community has, after extended
discussion in an open process, decided to restructure administrative
activities so that the Internet Society will house the IASA
and work with contractors such as Foretec. As you've pointed out,
we will have to work carefully to make sure that a transition is smooth and
and careful.
But, ownership should not be an issue. Any IETF assets that
may have been created by CNRI are simply work for hire: we paid
for those assets out of our pockets. I appreciate your statements
that CNRI has helped subsidize the IETF at times and that this
isn't a big money maker, but I'd also point to the US$16,920,928
we paid in meeting fees from 1997 to 2004. Property concerns
should be *off the table* as we "address these matters in due course
going forward."
Best regards,
Carl
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf