|
Re: IAOC Responsibilities
2005-02-06 22:26:11
Leslie,
The addition of such a specific responsibility for the IAOC shouldn't
constitute a mandate that they assume the role, but would simply enable
them to assume that role if appropriate.
Details of the formal responsibilities could be determined at a later time,
and an in depth discussion of this subject would definitely be appropriate.
However, the BCP sets an outline of these responsibilities and its
appropriate to include it there. I see no downside to delineating such a
responsibility for the IAOC in the BCP at this time, even if they were
never tasked by the IETF to assume such a role. However, it may turn out to
be a very important step in facilitating the transition planning at this stage.
bob
At 10:59 AM 2/3/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
To emphasize something that Harald said -- my read of the discussion
on this list is that the matter requires more discussion. It also
requires more attention to detail than should go into the BCP.
For example, from the discussion on the list, it's pretty clear
that at least some people question the scope of the IPR that the
IASA might manage -- *all* IETF IPR? IPR related only to
administrative activities, what are the guidelines for managing
it, etc.
I think what this illustrates is that there is the need to start
a separate effort to propose the codification of that management
-- perhaps the IASA's first "operational" bcp, even if we start
the discussion now. That would entail and allow a proper review
of all proposals.
Leslie.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Bob,
neither your comment nor Patrice's comment reassure my stated concern
that designating the IAOC as an entity that would be taking legal
responsibility separate from ISOC would expose its members to personal
liability.
I believe that letting the BCP task the IASA with this responsibility
allows it to decide - if it concludes that this is the best course for
the IETF - to establish a trust that may have the IAOC members as
trustees, or may have some different group as trustees, after due
consideration of the liability issues, and without exposing its members
to any liability that is not covered under the D&O insurance that ISOC
has contracted for, which covers all members of the IESG, IAB, Nomcom and
WG chairs operating within the IETF process.
It seems precipitate to me to insist that this specific organizational
form be mandated in this document, rather than let the IAOC decide on its
own whether or not to create such an entity after due deliberation.
Could you explain why you think that the idea of a "trust" needs to be
specified in the BCP, rather than assuming that the IASA will choose to
establish one if it becomes clear that this is the best construct for the IETF?
I do agree that the term "belonging to the IETF" is not the best language
to use, given the IETF's decision not to formalize its legal status at
this time.
Harald
--On 3. februar 2005 07:45 -0500 Robert Kahn
<rkahn(_at_)cnri(_dot_)reston(_dot_)va(_dot_)us> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|