ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries

2014-03-12 15:56:50
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