IETF Trust.
Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to LEMONADE:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade
S2ERC: http://s2erc.georgetown.edu/
GCSC: http://gcsc.georgetown.edu/
Me: http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~ eburger
-------- Original message --------
From: l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
Date:03/12/2014 5:59 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net,steve(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Cc: internetgovtech(_at_)iab(_dot_)org,ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol
Parameter Registries
All intellectual property rights in the content of the registries remains
that of the IETF,
Since IETF is an ISOC activity, and ISOC is the organisation that will be
involved in intellectual property disputes (see RFC2031) isn't that really ISOC
ownership?
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
[gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net]
Sent: 12 March 2014 20:50
To: Steve Crocker
Cc: internetgovtech(_at_)iab(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Mailing List
Subject: Re: Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries
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