Subject: RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:22:04 +0100

--On 31. januar 2005 18:48 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, January 31, 2005 06:24:46 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Domain names are not IPR.
>>
>> For this purpose, I would treat them like IPR
>
> I agree that the IASA should be responsible for managing them.
> But it is dangerous for an IETF process document to use phrasing like
> "IPR... including domain names", because that implies that we consider
> domain names to be intellectual property.  I do not believe that to be
> the consensus of the IETF.

Actually I believe you're both right.... the phrase should read "rights in 
domain names". As far as it's possible to have such a thing, the IETF has 
some.

                             Harald

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

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:26:23 -0500

>P.S: I'm prepared to live with whatever Jorge recommends; but I'd really
>prefer to avoid open-ended reassignments.

I'm not really advocating one position or the other, but
I can say that IASA wouldn't be co-opting any functions
of the IP-WG.  Rather, this all relates to IPR that IETF
itself gets (e.g., in the IETF databases, lists, etc.)
It would have little to do with the IPR in standards and
standards-track documents.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Leslie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:24 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit Alvestrand;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> To: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>,
>> At 12:16 PM +0100 2/1/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>>           <t>
>>>               The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual
>>>               property rights (IPR), including but not limited to
>>>               trademarks, and copyrights, that belong to the IETF.

   I must admit to thinking we were moving away from all-inclusive language
here. As I read this, we'd be _asking_ the IASA to constantly increase the
scope of this responsibility as folks allege that new areas should be
considered "Intellectual Property Rights".

>> Is this really what we want to say? 
> 
> I believe so. The above is theadditional responsibility for IASA.

   I'm afraid I don't understand this reply.

>> Or do we want to say  something like:
>> 
>> The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual property rights 
>> (IPR) related to IETF administrative support, including but not 
>> limited to trademarks, copyrights, attendance lists, tools, etc.?
>> 
>> We have an IPR WG and have undertaken a mammoth effort to define our 
>> standards-related IPR and how that will be assigned and managed, and 
>> I am not sure that we want to hand management of that IPR over to the 
>> IASA/IAOC, do we?  Given the number of the people in the community 
>> that were involved/interested in that effort, I think that we may 
>> continue to want direct community control over the standards-related 
>> IPR.

   Clearly there are some things we _do_ want to hand over to IASA; but
a blanket redirection of everything the IPR WG (and others) have been
working on _to_ the IASA seems out of line with what has been discussed.

P.S: I'm prepared to live with whatever Jorge recommends; but I'd really
prefer to avoid open-ended reassignments.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>