On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 15:41 -0700 "Lucy E. Lynch" > <llynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: > > > >> Brian, > >> > >> This is a fine document. Perhaps appropriately, it doesn't > >> say much of anything. > >> > >> Is the actual trust agreement a secret, or does the IETF and > >> IASA intend to make it public before the IESG approves it? > >> Will there be an IETF Last Call that includes an opportunity > >> to review the document itself? > > > > The actual document is still in review and and the on-going > > discussions are privileged as they invole outside parties. > > I've just sent a summary of our framework to the list (you > > anticipated me by a few minutes). The document falls under the > > "contracts or equivalent instruments with outside > > organizations" and IPR related duties of the IASA as outlined > > in section 3 of BCP 101 and as I understand this section is > > not subject to IETF Last Call. > > 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). > So, while IASA can probably form the trust in private and tell > us what has been agreed later, changing the BCP to shift the > IETF's rights designations from ISOC to something else requires, > IMO clearly, IETF community approval, just as the decisions to > shift things _to_ ISOC did. And whether the community would be > willing to agree to the draft Brian posted without being able to > see _exactly_ how the trust is structured... well, I guess one > could try to find out. > > > We are making our best efforts > > to relay information as it becomes available. > > Understood and appreciated. > > >> I note that the IASA web pages don't mention this at all > >> except for a paragraph under "Draft Agreements". That says > >> > >> > 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 > > > >> And is presumably a bit out of date, given comments in the > >> monthly report you circulated. And, referring to that > >> report, it also discusses new draft engagement agreements > >> with Counsel and other draft agreements which are not > >> mentioned on the IASA web site, much less available there. > > > > again, please see the minutes. > > 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. 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 am sure all of this is fine, but the agreement with the > >> community when IASA was formed was that all of these things > >> would be public to the extent possible. To the extent to > >> which few or none of them appear to be available, and the > >> IASA/IAOC does not seem to be able to keep its own web pages > >> current and the community informed that way, rather than via > >> just overview monthly reports, I think it should be a matter > >> of concern to all of us. > > > > we are working within the confines of "to the extent possible" > > and hope to be able to share the document soon. > > Thank you. > john > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf