Weaving the web of wording around various RFCs and the distinctions between the
IASA, the IAOC and the IETF, I have absolutely no idea whether a) the IETF
itself is an ISOC activity per se and b) issues about the intellectual property
rights associated with the protocol parameter registry contents vest with any
of the preceding bodies. But I thought we were talking principles, and the
principle I was espousing was that all intellectual property rights in the
content of the protocol parameters registries remains with the IETF, and does
not vest with the registry operator. I guess I'm treading on the toes of an
historic US position that in the past appeared to be that the intellectual
property rights of the IANA protocol parameter registries that were operated
under the terms of contracts with variously ARPA, DARPA and the NSF vested with
the USG in some fashion, and its a question that we appear to want to avoid as
there has never been any statements from the NTIA that expres!
sly disclaim this, and noone appears to want to press the point.
I personally am in favour of a stronger statement of principle from the IETF in
this area, but I'm just one voice, and I sense from the posts for Jari and
Eliot that they are unwilling to head further in this direction - fair enough.
regards,
Geoff
On 13 Mar 2014, at 8:59 am, <l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
<l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
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
________________________________________