--On Saturday, 26 November, 2005 22:16 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:28:50AM -0500, > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 113 lines which said: > >> The IAOC has concluded that this trust arrangement is, on >> balance in the best interests of the community. > >> But, unless I misunderstand the situation, asking that the >> veto provisions simply be removed is, in essence, a request >> that the whole plan be thrown away and alternatives >> considered. > > Am I right in thinking, from your message, that there is no > alternative and, since CNRI has its hands solidly locked over > IETF intellectual property, the current Trust proposal, > however lame it is (I am myself very concerned with Schedule > A, b) and c), which allow CNRI to keep more or less what they > want), is better than nothing? You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment :-) > (I believe it is what you said, expressed more shortly.) Actually, it makes an inference, maybe two, that I carefully didn't make or say. To repeat what I did say, in slightly more words... * There are apparently some alternatives to the Trust plan. None of them is without some problems. * I'm told that around nine months ago, the IAOC weighed at least some of the other options (maybe more of them) as well as the Trust option and concluded that the Trust was the best (or least bad) alternative. * I infer that the IAOC has concluded that the present draft agreement is about as good as we are going to get, at least without abandoning this path, discarding the work of the last nine or ten months, and trying something else entirely. Beyond that, if you need more information about alternatives and choices to make a decision about whether you are supportive of this, you need to ask the IAOC members. I don't have much more information and details about their decisions should come from them -- I'm pretty much just an onlooker. In particular, I don't know whether, if they had anticipated nine or more months of negotiations leading to this type of agreement when they decided to go forward with the Trust option, they would have made that choice. I also don't know whether that is important except insofar as I've noticed that having agreements (or protocol designs) drag out until general exhaustion and frustration sets in rarely produces good results. But, again, I don't know whether that principle applies here or not. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf