Subject: IAOC Responsibilities

From: Robert Kahn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:24:44 -0500

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 and organizations can do with intellectual property. Indeed,
this is but one aspect of a much larger topic that has not been discussed
in any real depth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On a related note, CNRI has also 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 resolutions of the
CNRI Board of Directions 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 related issues and not
to put this discussion off to some future time.

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:

Proposed Additions IAOC Responsibilities:

Serve as Trustees for IETF related intellectual property, as
appropriate, where such assets are placed in trust for the IETF, and
coordinate with the IESG and IAB, as appropriate, on such management
arrangements.

Develop quality of service standards, as appropriate, for the use of
IETF trademarks and establish procedures for the licensing of such
trademarks to providers of IETF support services. For example, such
service providers would be required, upon request by the IAOC, to provide
information, samples of use, or access to operations that, in the
reasonable opinion of the IAOC, are necessary for the IAOC to determine
whether the relevant services conform to the foregoing standards at any
time. If the IAOC determines that a service provider fails to meet such
standards, the IAOC shall make a recommendation to the IETF leadership on
how best to proceed.  The IAOC may also determine under what
circumstances the IAD is authorized to sublicense the use of IETF
trademarks by providers of IETF support services.

Provide specific guidance to the IAD in its administration of the
intellectual property procedures established for the contribution and use
of information or material for IETF purposes that may be subject to
copyright, patent or other rights or interests, or covered by privacy or
other confidentiality obligations, and meet with the IETF leadership at
regular intervals to review the existing IETF policies and procedures
governing confidential and/or proprietary information or material to
determine whether the existing policies and procedures meet the needs of
the IETF community.

In consultation with the IESG and IAB, retain legal counsel, where
appropriate or required, to represent the interests of the IAOC, IESG,
IAB or IETF, and, to the extent that either ISOC or the IAD is not the
party giving rise to the need for counsel, work with ISOC and/or IAD to
determine how best to cover the costs of any such legal services.

Bob Kahn

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:16:02 -0800 (PST)

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>
> 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.

> &nbsp;<br>
> 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.

> &nbsp;<br>
> 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>
> would have to be worked out in some detail.&nbsp; In general, such
> 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