ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2014-03-13 10:51:46
see

http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Copyright-FAQ.pdf

p.



On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:59 AM, <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
________________________________________
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