IAOC Responsibilities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 
It was recently pointed out that issues concerning confidentiality of information may not have been adequately addressed; patent submissions may also place additional constraints and restrictions on what individuals and organizations can do with intellectual property. Indeed, this is but one aspect of a much larger topic that has not been discussed in any real depth.
 
Although CNRI ran all aspects of the IETF Secretariat prior to 1998, and provided technical leadership as well, since then the provision of services has been carried out by Foretec Seminars, Inc. under contract to CNRI. CNRI maintains the oversight of the activity, which is the province of many of the topics discussed in connection with the IASA activity and the IAOC in particular. One of the aspects of this oversight activity is quality control of not only the services provided in support of the IETF, but quality control of various aspects of the associated intellectual property. My view is that the process undertaken on the public list has been very useful in describing what the IETF would like to see happen in the future. Although CNRI has not participated actively in the recent public discussions, CNRI has committed publicly to working with the IETF in its restructuring efforts going forward.
 
If, in due course, CNRI were to come to an accommodation with the IETF leadership as to how best to transition the current situation to a structure more along the lines indicated in the discussions to date, there are still many important issues that would have to be resolved. The issue of managing intellectual property is high up on that list. Whether or not the provision of services is provided under contract to CNRI or not in the future, to a large extent, the matter of managing intellectual property can be separated from the equation.
 
Among the issues to consider is (if CNRI does not provide the function) who will be responsible for administration and quality control over the use of trademarks, and how will that responsibility be carried out; and who will be responsible for managing proprietary materials developed for the IETF and how can they best be transferred to other parties in the event a transition is required.
 
It would be desirable to start a discussion on these topics prior to concluding on the BCP, recognizing that all the long-term issues will undoubtedly not be resolved up front.
 
On a related note, CNRI has also made the IETF leadership aware of the fact that CNRI may have substantial objections to certain of the proposed roles for ISOC going forward.  While none of the issues raised to date appear to be such that they cannot be resolved by resolutions of the CNRI Board of Directions and the ISOC Board of Directors, to date, the discussions leading to any resolution of this matter have not taken place.  The time is ripe to deal with these related issues and not to put this discussion off to some future time.
 
While CNRI currently intends to hold the IETF-related assets developed over many years, we are willing to consider placing these assets in a trust arrangement for use by the IETF in the future. The proposed IAOC could be tasked with additional responsibilities in this regard, but this would have to be worked out in some detail.  In general, such responsibilities should be added to the list in the draft IASA (proposed BCP 04), section 3.2 as follows:
 
Proposed Additions IAOC Responsibilities:
       
Bob Kahn
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]