Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 19:09
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working
> group last call
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 06:23:28PM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:

SNIP

>
> Certainly not legally, and I don't understand the "moral" argument
> either.  ISOC has never itself performed the IANA function.  Why does
> ISOC have a better claim than the organization that has been providing
> the service for more than 10 years?

Because the function had been provided by Jon Postel for many years prior to
that pursuant to various RFCs.  John did that under contract from the US
government, as an employee (or whatever) of various organizations.

Legally, that has nothing to do with ISOC.  But, to me, it has everything to
do with the Internet technical community and the IETF.  And ISOC is the
legal parent of the IETF.

So, since the IANA function was originally an emanation of the IETF, I think
that the associated intellectual property rights ought to be associated with
ISOC, the legal parent of the IETF.

>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>