> I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one > additional week until December 2nd. fwiw - I think that the IPR trust is basically the right path to take considering the circumstances but I would like to see answers to John's issues before proceeding and join John in requesting that the IETF get a commitment that the trust documents will not be signed until those answers have been posted and the community has had a chance to comment on them - thus, while it is good to extend the last call, I'd like to see it extended to a week after clarifications Lucy notes in her posting have been sent to the IETF list. Scott ------ All - I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one additional week until December 2nd. Feedback to the IETF list has been sparse, but there has been some traffic on the IPR-WG list and a few comments directed to the IAOC. Additional clarification has been requested on several points related to future Licensing of IPR held by the IETF Trust and on the exact nature and disposition of both Current and Historical data as defined in Schedule A. The combination of IETF 64, WSIS related travel, and the coming US holiday has made it hard for all three parties to the IETF Trust (CNRI/ISOC/IAOC) to coordinate our responses on these two issues. We hope to have clarifying text on the Licensing issue and updates for the FAQ shortly, and will publish before 12/2/05. Watch this space: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/ Thanks to all who have made comments, and we will keep you posted. Lucy E. Lynch Academic User Services Computing Center University of Oregon llynch @darkwing.uoregon.edu (541) 346-1774 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf