Bob, I appreciate your interest in working with the IETF to establish the IASA. I also appreciate your interest in improving the BCP. I have been disappointed that you have been sending revised comments on the IPR issue over the last two weeks. However you have not been engaging in a discussion with the community. You revise your text, but you do not respond to our questions or engage in active discussion. I still do not understand what you are trying to accomplish or what concerns you have. Let me try and explain what I believe the BCP says. Rather than just telling me what you think the BCP ought to say, why not engage us all in a dialogue about the current problems and about why you think what we are doing is the wrong approach. It's my understanding that the IASA is within ISOC. As a consequence of that when we say to the rest of the world that IASA manages the IETF's IPR interests, we actually say that ISOC manages those interests. There's an obvious question: why do we not say that ISOC manages our IPR interests? Well in addition to telling the rest of the world how our IPR works, we're telling ISOC how we want them to manage the IPR internally. We tell them we want it to be an IASA function. That means that other parts of ISOC would need to work with IASA if they wanted to use that IPR. Clearly this is purely an internal ISOC matter at a legal level. So in other words the BCP is intended to be useful both to the world at large and to establish some internal ISOC guidance with the cooperation of the ISOC BOT. --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf