There is no ISOC/personal IAOC insurance budget discussed. No insurance company wants to cover the snow ball Internet risks: yet the IETF responsibility may be deemed huge should a catastrophic situation arise due to its standards (or lack of, as in spam). I do not want to harp on this, but this total lack about risks evaluation - already just in the USA - and about international liability/rights of the concerned parties seems odd to me. I know this is a case study, but would Robert Kahn not be happy with the BCP and sues ISOC, he will be able to use the lack of the words he proposes to show he made everything to protect the IETF rights even against his own rights. Who will pay for the lawyers and for the damages he might obtain?
jfc
PS. I read Harald's question to Robert Khan about leaving IASA to decide. This seems OK, but very weak if not backed by some wording in the BCP because IASA has no legal reality. The few words I propose limit the responsibilities of the ISOC Chapters and remove US legal constraints, words of Robert with a possible "ISOC shall study and agree ..." about an IPR and financial responsibilities, are mandatory.
At 13:45 03/02/2005, Robert Kahn 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