I've been doing some more thinking about this, and I have received quite a bit of private feedback about my previous comments, ranging from "don't be so picky, let these guys do their thankless job" to "please be more picky, this is the thin end of the wedge." So - this isn't really about being picky, except that a legal agreement more or less forces us to be picky. Also, I appreciate as much as anybody that the Trustees are doing a thankless job for the benefit of the community. But if we look at the three issues together, we have to also consider *why* the Trust was created in the first place. My summary: it was created to ensure that the intellectual property important for the openness of Internet standards could never be alienated or altered except for the benefit of the community. I can understand why, in certain circumstances, the community might agree that some physical property, such as a worn-out pencil sharpener, should be disposed of, or that a specific piece of intellectual property might be agreed by the community to no longer important and therefore could be released by the Trust. The first case is pretty easy and I think we *could* give the Trustees the authority to dispose of useless physical property. Intellectual property is much harder, because who is to judge what's important? We might reach consensus that it's OK to release change control over the Tao (although I'm not sure I agree with that - what's so hard about keeping it under an RFC-like license?). We probably wouldn't reach consensus to release change control over RFC 791. But who would care to write down legally sound text drawing the line between those two extremes? A couple more comments in line... On 09/08/2013 07:47, Chris Griffiths wrote: > On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:42 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Chris >> >> I would not like to see the Trust Agreement change to accommodate issues >> one or two - I think that the agreement got that one right. As I said, if the Trust has a worn-out piece of equipment, they should be able to dispose of it. But this dilemma can be avoided by not acquiring equipment at all. > > Thank you for this feedback. > > >> Three is different. The Trust ought to be able to dispose of rights >> that are not needed, never will be and are costing money. But how can >> that be expressed without giving carte blanche to dispose of everything, >> for whatever purposes? We need a proposal as to how that line would be >> drawn - I do not have any sound ideas on this. > > I think providing thoughtful language around seeking community feedback and requiring time frames to dispose of items would be needed in this case. I note that the Trust Agreement does not explicitly recognise that the Trustees should follow BCP 101, including aspects such as: "To ensure that the IASA is run in a transparent and accountable manner." "the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public" If we're going to add something about community feedback to the Trust Agreement it should probably be more general rather than just for the specific matter of asset disposal. It's always been understood that the transparency requirement for the IAOC also applies to the Trust, but to my surprise we never wrote it down. >> Can you indicate what annual or one-off costs we are talking about? The >> domain names I have dealt with have been cheap enough not to be >> concerned about, once I found the best way to deal with them, although I >> understand that the IETF is operating in a different realm and so may >> have costs of a different magnitude. > > I agree some domains are not very expensive, however trademarks require legal work for registering and filing for them. While not huge numbers, we want to raise the issue that keeping these items requires overhead and expense that seems to not be warranted in some cases, and we want to discussed and get feedback on if keeping these and paying for them makes sense. There's also the issue that (as I understand it) specific marks like "IETF Secretariat" may be easier to defend than a more generic mark like plain "IETF". IANAL. Brian > Thanks > > >> Tom Petch >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Chris Griffiths" <cgriffiths@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:48 AM >> >> IETF Community, >> >> The IETF Trust Trustees would like feedback from the community on >> several issues: >> - We have received requests that we cannot accommodate and have >> consulted legal counsel to review our options >> - The trust agreement does not allow the trustees to effectively manage >> some trust assets >> >> The Trust was created in December 2005 by the Internet Society and the >> Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) for the purpose of >> "the advancement of education and public interest by acquiring, holding, >> maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual >> property and other property used in connection with the Internet >> standards process and its administration, for the advancement of the >> science and technology associated with the Internet and related >> technology." >> <http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-Agreement-Executed-12-15-05.pdf >> >> Issue 1 >> >> We have recently been asked permission to republish the TAO with a >> creative commons license, but according to counsel, the current trust >> agreement does not give the trustees the rights to do this. >> >> - Without specific language being added to the trust agreement, we >> cannot grant these types of requests. >> - The current open request for a creative commons license from 6/18/2013 >> cannot be completed. >> >> Issue 2 >> >> We cannot currently accept physical assets like hardware donations into >> the trust. Once accepted into the trust, we would be unable to dispose >> of these items in the future if they are identified as no longer being >> needed. >> >> - This removes flexibility in managing assets in the trust, and we >> currently use alternative methods of accepting donations outside of the >> trust. >> >> 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 based on legal counsel review of >> the current language >> >> You can also find the latest trust report that covers these items and >> was presented at the IETF 87 plenary here: >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-iesg-opsplenary-4 >> >> Thank you and we look forward to getting your feedback. >> >> Chris Griffiths >> Chair, IETF Trust >> >> >