--On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:25 +0200 "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't think you are alone with that impression. The
>> process you outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-*
>> form) sounds great to me.
>
> Mmmmm ... I think that one thing that the ipr working group
> got absolutey right was the decision not to try and craft
> legally suitable wording for intellectual property rights,
> rather delegating that task.
We certainly agree about that. Indeed, I believe that, having
agreed to that principle, the IPR WG went too far toward
drafting legal language.
> This sounds like a suggestion to restart the ipr wg, perhaps
> in the hope of getting a different outcome:-)
No, at least not from me. But the intention was that the IPR WG
establish principles for the IETF Track and then pass those
principles to the Trustees and IAOC, and have them implemented
in legal language, etc. To the extent to which they got near
the other tracks, they were expected to be completely consistent
with the boundaries established by RFC 4484 and prior practice.
The WG did that job, independent of how one feels about the
decisions made and the quality of consensus about some of them.
I'm not questioning the WG process or decisions here.
However, this document contains provisions that are inconsistent
with WG guidance, inconsistent with 4844, or both. Those
provisions also permit the Trust to take arbitrary actions in
the future with little transparency and no accountability.
One can certainly question that without trying to restart the
IPR WG or any similar effort.
> I would however agree with the suggestion that a complicated
> (to me as a lay person) document should be accompanied by a
> non-legally binding lay explanation, eg as to why it is
> thought suitable to cut the review period from 28 to 14 days,
> or why a reference to the BSD licence should be thought
> adequate.
Of course, the latter is appropriate for a lay explanation. To
the extent to which the Trustees discussed the various
alternatives (noting that none of the actual Trustee are, as far
as I know, lawyers either), that is also appropriate because it
is not clear that anyone delegated that particular decision to
the Trustees and the community needs that information to
evaluate the proposal.
On the other hand, the 28 -> 14 change isn't a legal matter at
all. It is simply a matter of IETF procedure and relationship
with the IASA. While I think it represents depressingly poor
judgment and that it may be a symptom of the degree to which the
IASA has gotten out of touch with the community, I see nothing
improper with their proposing a 14 day review period or, if they
like, a three day review period to us... as long as we can say
"no".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf