Geoff,
Thanks. No argument. It was interesting to me as I was speaking during the
session and asserting that we have no claim to the intellectual property that
we (ICANN) might find ourselves having quite strong feelings if we were told we
had to implement restrictive policies. It’s not a scenario that, to my
knowledge, has ever come up before, but I think it fits into your general
framework of espousing principles.
Steve
On Mar 12, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Steve,
Firstly I should reiterate that this is not about ICANN. I agree
wholeheartedly with the "important observation" in Russ's posting, and I am
very heartened to read your undertaking relating to ICANN having no
intellectual property interests in the material it publishes in this role as
protocol parameter registry operator. For me, it was very welcome as a
statement at the meeting, and equally welcome as a statement here, and, while
I can only speak personally, I would like to sincerely extend my thanks for
making this undertaking.
My posting was not about the specific, but about the principle. I believe it
to be incumbent on the IETF to clearly state the principle, namely that the
operator of a protocol parameter registry is doing so at the specific behest
of the IETF, and as an agent of the IETF. All intellectual property rights in
the content of the registries remains that of the IETF, and does not vest
with the registry operator. This is desire that I believe is entirely
consistent with your undertaking that ICANN as a protocol parameter registry
operator makes no such claim, however I suppose I am wanting this to be a
principle that applies generally.
As to folk changing their mind in the future, its true that the future is a
constant source of surprise to us, and statements that include terms such as
"never" or "forever" are constantly being mocked by the unfolding of time.
But I don't think we need to cross every bridge here - we can at best set
forth our values and principles on the day and hope that our successors at
least consider what we were trying to achieve and why we thought it to be
important as they make their changes to suit their world. These principles
appear to be an earnest effort in that direction.
kind regards,
Geoff
On 13 Mar 2014, at 7:07 am, Steve Crocker <steve(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Geoff, et al,
I made a statement in the igovupdate session and I’ll reiterate here in the
spirit of using the list as the definitive record and not the face to face
session.
ICANN has NO intellectual property interests in the material it publishes.
My understanding of copyright law is that copyright attaches to the creator
of content, irrespective of whether they register that copyright. (There is
utility in registering copyrights I am not enough of expert to expound on
those details, nor do I think they’re relevant to this discussion.)
During the discussion in the igovupdate session I heard brief mention of
possible issues regarding various RFCs and registries over the years. These
pertained to various government agencies and others, but did not involve
ICANN.
If the community desires a formal document saying what I’ve said above, I
will personally shepherd it through our system.
Let me address two other points, one that is mentioned below and one that is
entirely separate.
I believe the scenario of moving the protocol parameter registries to
another operator has already been explored. I am given to understand that
the IETF has conducted exercises that mirror these registries. I am not
familiar with the details. The IAOC is probably the best group to say more
about this. In any case, I don’t think would be problematic and as a matter
of good business practice we will cooperate with any reasonable exercise or
demonstration to provide that assurance.
Something that occurred to me during the discussion which I have not seen
mentioned before is the following. All of us follow the principle that the
information created by the IETF is available to anyone, anywhere, without
cost. What would happen if the IETF changes its position and requires IANA
to either restrict its distribution of information and/or charge for it? I
think we’d have to think carefully about that. Would the IETF be willing to
assert as part of its principles that it won’t do such a thing?
Thanks,
Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtech(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech