I continue to remain concerned that the BCP is not flexible enough to allow
the IAOC to assume administrative responsibilities for acting as a trustee
for IETF-owned IP. There needs to be a specific task added to the IAOC
responsibilities for this purpose. Specifically, the following words should
be added to the list of IAOC responsibilities: "Serve as Trustee for IETF
assets including, without limitation, intellectual property and domain names."
Patrice's comment below is particularly important where licensing and other
management tasks related to "donated patents" are concerned. Simply
designating IASA to be responsible has too many operational problems to be
workable in practice. In light of the interrelationship between the
administration of IETF assets and the potential impact on IETF Standards
activities, the IAOC should retain the primary responsibility for managing
IETF assets in the first instance, even if the IAOC were to delegate the
day to day administrative tasks such as sublicensing to others (e.g. to the
IAD).
Bob
------------------
From: "Patrice Lyons" <palyons(_at_)bellatlantic(_dot_)net>
To: "Robert Kahn" <rkahn(_at_)cnri(_dot_)reston(_dot_)va(_dot_)us>
Subject: IP matters
Bob,
There is a recent discussion on the IETF list that raises certain
questions. In particular, take a look at the statement: "The IASA is
responsible for managing all intellectual property rights (IPR) . . . that
belong to the IETF." Since the IETF is not incorporated, it is at best
unclear whether the IETF is capable of owning copyrights, patents,
trademarks or any other rights or interests. There are simple procedures
that may be required to enable this such as filing appropriate documents
with the Virginia state authorities.
Also, since the IASA does not appear to be a legal person, but rather an
activity or process having two components: IAD and IAOC, where would the
responsibility for managing the so-called IPR reside in the first instance
and who would decide? For example, if the IAD is an employee of ISOC, a
license agreement between the IETF and ISOC would be required to authorize
the IAD to use the IETF marks and to sublicense the marks to IETF service
providers. Who has signature authority for this purpose? From a CNRI
perspective, it would appear prudent to task the IAOC with the
responsibility for entering into such a license agreement with ISOC, and to
oversee quality of service standards with respect to the activities of the
IAD using the IETF marks.
Regards,
Patrice Lyons
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf