IAOC Responsibilities - updated

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

 



The following text largely tracks the message I posted to the IETF list on Tuesday afternoon, but it differs primarily in that the set of proposed additional IAOC Responsibilities (at the end of the message) have been tightened up as well as expanded based on numerous comments that I've received from others in the interim. One of the added considerations is the consolidation all IETF-related intellectual property, if possible, including that owned by CNRI, ISOC and others so it can be managed in its entirety as one collection. Another concern is about insurance for all aspects of IETF activities, including those of the IAOC in carrying out its designated functions. Some of these coverages are currently provided by ISOC, and would best be consolidated as well. CNRI has publicly stated its commitment to working with the IETF in its efforts on administrative restructuring process and we plan to continue doing that. I would urge that the BCP convey to the IAOC, among other things, the additional responsibilities called out at the end of the message.

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 or organizations may do with certain information or material for IETF purposes. Indeed, this is but one aspect of a much larger topic that has not been discussed in any real depth. There are other important issues that merit attention in this context, insurance, clear indication of who has signature authority and for what actions, ownership of copyright claims in IETF documentation -- to name a few.
 
Although CNRI has been responsible for all aspects of the IETF Secretariat for over sixteen years, and, prior to 1998, provided technical leadership to the IETF as well, since then the provision of IETF Secretariat services has been carried out by Foretec Seminars, Inc. under contract to CNRI. CNRI continues to provide the IETF Secretariat function, and maintains the oversight of the IETF Secretariat services provided by Foretec. These CNRI activities are 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 policies and procedures to govern the contribution and use of information or material that may be subject to patents, copyright or other rights or interests (?intellectual property?). 
 
In my view, 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 furnished under contract to CNRI or not in the future, to a large extent the matter of managing intellectual property may be separated from the equation.
 
Among the issues to consider is (if CNRI does not provide the IETF Secretariat function) who will be responsible for administration and quality control over the use of trademarks, and how will that responsibility be carried out; who will be responsible for managing confidential and/or proprietary information or materials developed for or contributed to the IETF and its other constituent bodies such as the IETF Secretariat; and how can intellectual property rights or interests in such information or material 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.
 
CNRI has 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 the parties, subject to the adoption of appropriate resolutions by both the CNRI Board of Directors 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 issues and not to put this discussion off to some future time.
 
Absent any other arrangement, CNRI intends to continue to hold the IETF-related assets, including intellectual property rights or interests therein, that have been developed over many years; however, we are willing to consider transferring these assets in a trust arrangement for use by the IETF in the future, subject to oversight by IAOC acting as trustees for the IETF in the public interest. Specifically, in order to enable the IAOC to assume such trust responsibility, it is important to add this task to the list of IAOC responsibilities in the draft IASA (proposed BCP 04), section 3.2 as follows:
 
Proposed Additional IAOC Responsibilities:              
 


_______________________________________________

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]