----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@xxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@xxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: Re: Flaw in the NOTEWell System makes NOTEWELL NOTWELL > > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2006 03:44:21 PM -0700 todd glassey > <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi there Audit Fans - Lets look at NoteWell and figure out how it > > interacts with Corporate Governance and Compliance Policies... > > First of all, you keep using the word "NOTEWELL" as if it is the name of > something. Perhaps a policy, or a system, or a process, or a body of > documents, or ... I don't know. But the IETF has no process or body of > material which it calls "NOTEWELL" or "NoteWell" or anything like that. Hmmm - I wonder what CMU's lawyers would say about that Jeffrey? > > The admonition "Note Well" appears above a one-page notice which is > distributed to all participants at IETF meetings, published on the IETF web > site, and so on. That page reminds people that the IETF has certain rules > requiring contributions made to its process and the responsibilities of > people making those contributions, and that anything you say in places like > an IETF meeting or mailing list is subject to those rules. > > > > 2) The IETF however claims that any Email sent to it in any form > > constitutes NOTEWELL and becomes its property. The problem is that it has > > no agreements with the other email provider to make that true. > > As I explained above, there is no body of documents or process or whatever > called "NOTEWELL", so there is nothing that "constitutes NOTEWELL". I > think the phrase you are looking for here is "is subject to the terms of > BCP 78 and BCP 79". > > The IETF does not claim that any email or other contributions sent to it > become its property. In fact, IETF contributions remain the property of > the contributor, with the IETF gaining only certain non-exclusive rights > which it needs in order to carry out its mission. For someone who > contributes material that belongs to his employer, it is up to him to > insure he is authorized to do so, just as it is up to him to make sure the > material he wants to contribute is not confidential before posting it to a > public mailing list. > > Interestingly, many other SDO's do _not_ work this way. Their members are > typically companies, not individuals, and those members are required to pay > a fee and sign a contract, one of whose terms is that any contributions > made to the standards process are "works for hire", belonging to the SDO. > > > > > So who actually owns the IP? > > Whoever owned it to begin with. > > -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx> > Sr. Research Systems Programmer > School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility > Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf