----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL
On Tuesday, July 25, 2006 03:44:21 PM -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it
interacts with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies...
First of all, you keep using the word "NOTEWELL" as if it is the name of
something. Perhaps a policy, or a system, or a process, or a body of
documents, or ... I don't know. But the IETF has no process or body of
material which it calls "NOTEWELL" or "NoteWell" or anything like that.
Hmmm - I wonder what CMU's lawyers would say about that Jeffrey?
The admonition "Note Well" appears above a one-page notice which is
distributed to all participants at IETF meetings, published on the IETF
web
site, and so on. That page reminds people that the IETF has certain rules
requiring contributions made to its process and the responsibilities of
people making those contributions, and that anything you say in places
like
an IETF meeting or mailing list is subject to those rules.
2) The IETF however claims that any Email sent to it in any form
constitutes NOTEWELL and becomes its property. The problem is that it
has
no agreements with the other email provider to make that true.
As I explained above, there is no body of documents or process or whatever
called "NOTEWELL", so there is nothing that "constitutes NOTEWELL". I
think the phrase you are looking for here is "is subject to the terms of
BCP 78 and BCP 79".
The IETF does not claim that any email or other contributions sent to it
become its property. In fact, IETF contributions remain the property of
the contributor, with the IETF gaining only certain non-exclusive rights
which it needs in order to carry out its mission. For someone who
contributes material that belongs to his employer, it is up to him to
insure he is authorized to do so, just as it is up to him to make sure the
material he wants to contribute is not confidential before posting it to a
public mailing list.
Interestingly, many other SDO's do _not_ work this way. Their members are
typically companies, not individuals, and those members are required to
pay
a fee and sign a contract, one of whose terms is that any contributions
made to the standards process are "works for hire", belonging to the SDO.
So who actually owns the IP?
Whoever owned it to begin with.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf