To emphasize something that Harald said -- my read of the discussion on this list is that the matter requires more discussion. It also requires more attention to detail than should go into the BCP.
For example, from the discussion on the list, it's pretty clear that at least some people question the scope of the IPR that the IASA might manage -- *all* IETF IPR? IPR related only to administrative activities, what are the guidelines for managing it, etc.
I think what this illustrates is that there is the need to start a separate effort to propose the codification of that management -- perhaps the IASA's first "operational" bcp, even if we start the discussion now. That would entail and allow a proper review of all proposals.
Leslie.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Bob,
neither your comment nor Patrice's comment reassure my stated concern that designating the IAOC as an entity that would be taking legal responsibility separate from ISOC would expose its members to personal liability.
I believe that letting the BCP task the IASA with this responsibility allows it to decide - if it concludes that this is the best course for the IETF - to establish a trust that may have the IAOC members as trustees, or may have some different group as trustees, after due consideration of the liability issues, and without exposing its members to any liability that is not covered under the D&O insurance that ISOC has contracted for, which covers all members of the IESG, IAB, Nomcom and WG chairs operating within the IETF process.
It seems precipitate to me to insist that this specific organizational form be mandated in this document, rather than let the IAOC decide on its own whether or not to create such an entity after due deliberation.
Could you explain why you think that the idea of a "trust" needs to be specified in the BCP, rather than assuming that the IASA will choose to establish one if it becomes clear that this is the best construct for the IETF?
I do agree that the term "belonging to the IETF" is not the best language to use, given the IETF's decision not to formalize its legal status at this time.
Harald
--On 3. februar 2005 07:45 -0500 Robert Kahn <rkahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I continue to remain concerned that the BCP is not flexible enough to allow the IAOC to assume administrative responsibilities for acting as a trustee for IETF-owned IP. There needs to be a specific task added to the IAOC responsibilities for this purpose. Specifically, the following words should be added to the list of IAOC responsibilities: "Serve as Trustee for IETF assets including, without limitation, intellectual property and domain names."
Patrice's comment below is particularly important where licensing and other management tasks related to "donated patents" are concerned. Simply designating IASA to be responsible has too many operational problems to be workable in practice. In light of the interrelationship between the administration of IETF assets and the potential impact on IETF Standards activities, the IAOC should retain the primary responsibility for managing IETF assets in the first instance, even if the IAOC were to delegate the day to day administrative tasks such as sublicensing to others (e.g. to the IAD).
Bob ------------------
From: "Patrice Lyons" <palyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Robert Kahn" <rkahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: IP matters
Bob,
There is a recent discussion on the IETF list that raises certain questions. In particular, take a look at the statement: "The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual property rights (IPR) . . . that belong to the IETF." Since the IETF is not incorporated, it is at best unclear whether the IETF is capable of owning copyrights, patents, trademarks or any other rights or interests. There are simple procedures that may be required to enable this such as filing appropriate documents with the Virginia state authorities.
Also, since the IASA does not appear to be a legal person, but rather an activity or process having two components: IAD and IAOC, where would the responsibility for managing the so-called IPR reside in the first instance and who would decide? For example, if the IAD is an employee of ISOC, a license agreement between the IETF and ISOC would be required to authorize the IAD to use the IETF marks and to sublicense the marks to IETF service providers. Who has signature authority for this purpose? From a CNRI perspective, it would appear prudent to task the IAOC with the responsibility for entering into such a license agreement with ISOC, and to oversee quality of service standards with respect to the activities of the IAD using the IETF marks.
Regards,
Patrice Lyons
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf