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

[<[e-mail]>]

Ah, RFC 6620 and RFC 4748. 

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: S Moonesamy [[e-mail]]
Sent: 13 March 2014 07:46
To: Geoff Huston; Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter  Registries

Hi Geoff,
At 22:23 12-03-2014, Geoff Huston wrote:
>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 expressly disclaim
>this, and noone appears to want to press the point.

I'll comment about (b).  There is a RFC published in 2011 which
states that the intellectual property rights of IETF protocol
parameter assignment information is held by the IETF Trust.  There
isn't any (formal) agreement about the intellectual property
rights.  There is, as mentioned above, the legacy stuff.  The bottom
line is that the legal aspect is unclear.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy