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

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

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 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, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> 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
> ________________________________________