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

see

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

p.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:59 AM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.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@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston [
> gih@apnic.net]
> Sent: 12 March 2014 20:50
> To: Steve Crocker
> Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org; ietf@ietf.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@shinkuro.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@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
>