On 2004/12/07, Bob Kahn wrote: > I think it fair to state in the document what the IETF thinks appropriate > for it to manage its own affairs going forward, but one of the matters we > will have to work out is the fact that there is considerable IP generated > over the past almost twenty years. At present, CNRI owns most of this IP, > but the US Government may have certain continuing rights in the data as well. > Dear Bob - I think I'd like to address this issue since you've brought it up. In case you haven't had a chance to read my interim report, you will find some more details on this subject: http://public.resource.org/adminrest/interim_report/ I was very careful in that report to give a variety of options that the community might wish to pursue. However, there was one very concrete recommendation: "In my opinion, Foretec should make a copy of the source code and regular dumps or phpmyadmin access to the IETF's datatracker available to the IETF community as soon as possible." Note the word "should" which has very precise meaning in the IETF. As you know, I've spent a great deal of time looking into how the IETF operates. As part of my due diligence, I read very carefully the agreements that CNRI had with the US government, pulled the CNRI tax returns, and looked at the financials you've furnished to the IETF leadership. I went through a similar process with other organizations involved, so I think I've got a pretty good feel for how the IETF has been financed and operated over the past 18+ years. My conclusion is pretty simple: CNRI and Foretec do *NOT* have any ownership interest in "the IETF". You own your physical assets such as computers, but you do not own any intellectual property related to the IETF. None. In the particular case of the datatracker, that has been developed during a period where IETF meeting attendees have been paying in around $2 million per year to CNRI. Those meeting fees paid for the meeting and the operation of the IETF secretariat. We paid for that datatracker and Al Vezza's repeated refusal to provide a dump of the database to the IETF because of proprietary concerns is just plain wrong. When I hear "ownership interests" get tangled up in the discussion of how an international public community like the IETF will move forward, I've got a problem. CNRI has operated the secretariat for 18 years, and everybody has repeatedly said how grateful the community is for that service. But, it is just that: a service. Any assets created were public assets and are held in trust for the community. For example, CNRI was kind enough to register ietf.org for the community. But, you don't "own" that domain name. You registered it on behalf of the community. Had you asserted ownership on that name, I'm *sure* there would have been extended discussion of the topic on the IETF list. The same goes for the trademark registration you made for the term "IETF Secretariat": that is simply a prudent defensive measure you did on behalf of the community to make sure that "bad guys" didn't do things with the term. > As you know, I have committed publicly to working with the IETF on the > administrative restructuring issues. Over the coming year, I hope we can > work out how best to handle matters such these, but at best the document > ought to recognize this fact of life and that it will be necessary to > address these matters in due course going forward. > The "fact of life" is that the community has, after extended discussion in an open process, decided to restructure administrative activities so that the Internet Society will house the IASA and work with contractors such as Foretec. As you've pointed out, we will have to work carefully to make sure that a transition is smooth and and careful. But, ownership should not be an issue. Any IETF assets that may have been created by CNRI are simply work for hire: we paid for those assets out of our pockets. I appreciate your statements that CNRI has helped subsidize the IETF at times and that this isn't a big money maker, but I'd also point to the US$16,920,928 we paid in meeting fees from 1997 to 2004. Property concerns should be *off the table* as we "address these matters in due course going forward." Best regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf