P.S: I'm prepared to live with whatever Jorge recommends; but I'd really
prefer to avoid open-ended reassignments.
I'm not really advocating one position or the other, but
I can say that IASA wouldn't be co-opting any functions
of the IP-WG. Rather, this all relates to IPR that IETF
itself gets (e.g., in the IETF databases, lists, etc.)
It would have little to do with the IPR in standards and
standards-track documents.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Leslie [mailto:john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit Alvestrand;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>,
At 12:16 PM +0100 2/1/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
<t>
The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual
property rights (IPR), including but not limited to
trademarks, and copyrights, that belong to the IETF.
I must admit to thinking we were moving away from all-inclusive language
here. As I read this, we'd be _asking_ the IASA to constantly increase the
scope of this responsibility as folks allege that new areas should be
considered "Intellectual Property Rights".
Is this really what we want to say?
I believe so. The above is theadditional responsibility for IASA.
I'm afraid I don't understand this reply.
Or do we want to say something like:
The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual property rights
(IPR) related to IETF administrative support, including but not
limited to trademarks, copyrights, attendance lists, tools, etc.?
We have an IPR WG and have undertaken a mammoth effort to define our
standards-related IPR and how that will be assigned and managed, and
I am not sure that we want to hand management of that IPR over to the
IASA/IAOC, do we? Given the number of the people in the community
that were involved/interested in that effort, I think that we may
continue to want direct community control over the standards-related
IPR.
Clearly there are some things we _do_ want to hand over to IASA; but
a blanket redirection of everything the IPR WG (and others) have been
working on _to_ the IASA seems out of line with what has been discussed.
P.S: I'm prepared to live with whatever Jorge recommends; but I'd really
prefer to avoid open-ended reassignments.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf