Hi Glenn,
>Especially when you consider that so far not a single reason has been raised against the proposed action.
Allow me to be the first.
Attempting to wipe away someone copyrights by merely saying so seems a bit agressive to me. Then to not give others a informed opportunity to open source or license those copyrights before the change is made seems even more aggressive. But to give away someones copyrights to the general public without even attempted contact seems to me, most agessive. Aren't the people in those registries your customers? I have copywritten material on those registries and I was nt under any obligation to give up copyrights when a submission was made, nor am I in any particular hurry to do so. Or perhaps this is just for submissions going forward, is that right?
It's interesting to me to see the support for this before the the lawyers finalize the language. Things can, and usually do, change drastically after lawyers get involved. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to see the final product first? One of the things that really jumps out at me is where is says that this new policy...:
Must ensure that any text that may be considered as copyrighted,
including that from an RFC or another document, is included so
that there is no ambiguity.
<tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-trust-ianapolicy-00>
>Eyeballs are welcome, but the hope/expectation was that between the IETF lists and the IANA group that would cover enough distribution channels and >have them share with anyone they felt needed to review it such as company attorneys etc. .
I will do my best to get you some more eyeballs.
Tim
