Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 16:29 -0700 "Lucy E. Lynch" 
<llynch at darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:

> > But any new BCP, or modification to a BCP is.  And, whatever
> > the negotiations might be that you need to get there, this
> > isn't an "agreement with an outside organization", it is how
> > IETF IPR is managed by the IASA and an IASA-relevant
> > organization.   A claim that such a body is "outside" seems
> > to me to be dubious in the extreme.
>
> The Trust is a multi-party document (ISOC/CNRI/IETF) and the
> modification to the BCP is meant to reflect a simple change in
> the putative IPR holder going forward (from ISOC as defined in
> BCP101 to the Trust IF such a trust should be formed). The
> change moves control of the IPR closer to the IETF community.
> I'm not arguing that the Trust, once formed. is "outside" but
> the parties forming the Trust include "outside" bodies (ISOC
> and CNRI).

Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you 
are negotiating.  I don't question that.  As I understand BCP 
101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from 
the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those 
bodies and the community only on a need to know basis.  The 
question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG 
expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP 
without seeing the final trust agreement.  If that answer is 
"no", then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity 
that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for 
public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA 
elements.

> > >> > Proposed IPR Trust
> > >> > The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement
> > >> > from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response.
> > >> > The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be
> > >> > sent to CNRI in early June
> > >
> > > See the regular minutes posted here:
> > > http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html
> ...

> > Lucy, I don't mean to be critical, but the whole IASA
> > arrangement was created to provide a strong and easy-to-use
> > framework for the community to get it work done.  From my
> > point of view at least, that translates into keeping things
> > organized enough that the community does not need to read
> > every published set of minutes to know what is going on or to
> > find an important document.  IASA has professional staff,
> > that staff should either be keeping web pages up to date or,
> > IMO, the IAOC has a problem which you should be solving on a
> > timely basis, reporting in minutes if you can't solve
> > immediately, etc.
>
> I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents
> that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of
> documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job
> applications, for example) due to sensative content or
> on-going negotiations.

I apologize if this sounds like micromanagement, but, if the 
IASA, which was put together in large measure to move 
administrative tasks from IETF volunteers to professional staff, 
requires you to maintain the web site as a volunteer, then 
something is broken.  That web site and its maintenance is part 
of the administrative function and is required under the IASA 
BCP to keep the IETF community informed.   The IASA staff needs 
to maintain it or make arrangements to keep it current and 
comprehensive, with no excuses.

> The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have
> for giving some insight into our process. They are developed
> from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as
> they are approved.

I probably have the same comment about "volunteer scribe" that I 
do about "volunteer web page".  That is how we used to do 
things, but it is part of the problem the IASA was formed to 
solve.

    john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf