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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 08:08:02 PM -0400 John C Klensin 
<john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:

> 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.

I think you mean "If that answer is 'yes', ...".

I would hope that whatever trust agreement is reached provides for the same 
level of openness that we require of the IAOC.  Obviously we won't know 
until we see the final trust agreement.  I don't see how the IETF can 
possibly be expected to approve the proposed changes to BCP 101 without 
seeing that document.  I also believe it would be inappropriate for the 
trust to be formed and handed all of the IETF's IPR until those changes 
have been approved.

So, it seems to me like the process has to go something like this:

1) IAOC and CNRI reach a mutually-acceptable Trust Agreement
2) IAOC makes that document available to the IETF
3) IETF Last Call on the BCP 101 changes
4) Publish new BCP 101
5) Form the trust, using the agreement published in (2)




> > 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.

Cut them some slack, John.  Last I checked, the IASA didn't have "a 
professional staff"; it had one person.  The document I remember didn't 
require the ISOC to provide staff to maintain the IASA's web site, take 
minutes, etc, and it didn't empower the IAD to hire such staff, either. 
They're supposed to contract that stuff out to competent entities, and that 
process is still just starting.  In the meantime, assuming that all of the 
documents that can be made available are, as Lucy says they are, then I 
don't think lack of a professional webmaster is preventing the IASA from 
meeting its reporting obligations.


> > 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.

See above, but more so.  I understand the IESG benefits enormously from 
having agendas, minutes, and the like handled by a professional who I'm 
told is very good at what she does.  Maybe the IAOC would benefit in the 
same way, and maybe not, but I think that's something we can safely let 
them figure out for themselves.

-- Jeff

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