On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:58 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hello SM, > Hi Chris, > At 13:59 01-08-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin): >> >> I have an allergy to modifying the Trust Agreement unless there's an >> overwhelming reason to do so. It was a very hard-won piece of text. >> >> > Issue #1 >> > We have recently been asked permission to >> > republish the TAO with a creative commons >> > license, but unfortunately the current trust >> > agreement does not give the trustees the >> > rights to do this >> >> It doesn't? You have the right to license "existing and future >> intellectual property" according to clause 2.1 of the Trust Agreement. >> Is there some particular property of the CC license that causes a >> problem? > > I was told during the JSON chartering that relicensing of the specification was not a problem. I would appreciate some feedback on the questions from Brian Carpenter. I just replied to Brian's email, and also requested that Jorge Contreras (CC'd) weigh in with his legal review on this matter. Please let me know if you need any further details. >> > Issue #3 >> > Once a domain name or trademark is >> > registered by the trust, it cannot be >> > abandoned even if it is no longer needed >> > We must maintain these in perpetuity >> >> IANAL, but it isn't clear to me that clause 9.4 forces you to do this. >> It requires you to "take reasonable steps" and to file applications "as >> the Trustees deem necessary in order to maintain and protect the Trust >> Assets." If you decide (and minute) that it isn't reasonable or necessary >> to maintain veryolddomainname.org, where's the crime? > > The IAOC decided to register a domain name. It wasn't well-thought in my humble opinion. Anyway, I don't see why there will ever be a need for a new domain. As for trademarks, well, I don't see why the IETF needs more of them. While I cannot speculate if we will need to register new domains or trademarks, there are some that have already been registered that the trust must continue to maintain indefinitely that we would prefer to see lapse. The current state of having to hold onto them indefinitely seems impractical and requires the trust to go through efforts to maintain these every few years when they are most likely not needed. Thanks Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail