Hi Bob - Since I examined some of the issues you raise in some depth as part of my consulting engagement, I thought I could provide some useful background on some of the points you raise. For those who are interested, I looked at these issues in two reports: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/docs/draft-malamud-interim-data-flows-00.html http://public.resource.org/adminrest/draft-malamud-consultant-report-01.html (both are in the i-d directory as well). <snip> > 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.<br> Your CNRI 2002 tax returns showed that CNRI owns 96% of Foretec Seminars, so I have a very tough time making a distinction between the two. The Foretec board of directors serves at the pleasure of the CNRI board. > <br> > 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.<br> There is absolutely no paper trail of any sort showing CNRI as "managing intellectual property." I see no consultations with IETF leadership and, indeed as shown below, I don't feel that there has been any active management on CNRI's part. Indeed, on the question of preservation of intellectual property through proper archiving, I've only found gross neglect. > <br> > 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. <br> These are two different issues. 1. Trademark. There is only one trademark that I have found, a US registration for the word mark "IETF Secretariat". In particular, the term "IETF" has not been registered. I dealt with that issue in my second report and it appears that the registration by CNRI was a defensive measure to protect the community and was done as part of the work for hire arrangement in which the community engaged CNRI based on a verbal agreement. That's the nicest way I can describe it. In any case, this is not intellectual property to be bartered and my advice was that if CNRI feels this *is* property, the "entity which provides support services" should simply call itself something else. 2. "who will be responsible for managing proprietary materials ....". The answer to that is quite clear: the IAOC will handle these matters going forward as part of ISOC. The answer is also quite clear that the community would prefer that there not be proprietary materials. Related to that, I'd like to reiterate my conclusion about any intellectual property related to the IETF: after extensive discussions and research, I can *only* conclude that neither CNRI nor Foretec hold any intellectual property interests in materials pertaining to or developed for the IETF. <snip> > 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:<br> <snip> There are significant provisions in the current draft and, as far as I can tell, a strong community consensus. It isn't fair to other members of the community to treat the current document as a jumping off point for protracted additional negotiations. I'm a bit bothered by the term "intends to hold the IETF-related assets developed over many years." Can you enumerate specifically what property you believe you own? I worked very hard for several months investigating that issue and the only conclusion I can draw is that the only assets which might be considered CNRI property are some tables, desks, chairs, and perhaps a few lamps and computers. I'm sure the readers on this list would like to know if there are additional items. Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf