Re: business deals and BCP for IAOC / IAD
Maybe I am naive, but the discussion I have seen on the list is not
actually about something the IETF can or should "approve". Reportedly,
ForeTec, CNRI, and Neustar are in negotiations. The IETF has no say in
Reportedly, what has been asked is "will the IETF react badly to Neustar
engage in this transaction?" My reaction to the question is:
1) It shows good sense that Neustar is asking
2) As has been noted (and probably was understood when the question was
asked) no one is in a position to answer this definitively, nor to bind the
community to an answer.
3) Based on what was posted, it seems unlikely to upset the applecart.
Now, there are lots of "interesting" issues in such a deal, including
issues about who owns what intellectual property now, who will own it
aftwards, who will own what going forward, etc. However, that is mostly a
matter of Neustar and CNRI having discussions, with property disclosures
about risks and proper skepticism as is suited to any business deal. It
does not involve the IETF, IESG, IAB, IAOC, interim IACO, IAD, ISOC, or any
other part of I* making assertions or conclusions.
It also, at least according to what I saw on this list, dos not involve the
IAOC making any kind of binding committment to work with Neustar now or in
Pragmatically, if such a deal does take place, then we will be working with
Neustar whether we want to or not. The fact that they appear to be
sensitive to concerns is nice, but irrelevant.
I appreciate the interim IAOC letting us know that hey have been informed
of such discusions, and asked certain questions. There is no indication
that they have over-reached themselves in responding. There is no
indication that anything in the BCP needs to be reconsidered or changed
based on this.
So can we worry about the things we need to focus on for getting the BCP
done? Can we find some meeting point on the open issues (particularly
review / appeal) so we can get this done? [Oh heck. I have written this
much, I might as well state my opinion on this issue.] There are clearly
risks with either a process that invites second guessing and business
interference, or with a process that hides everything from the
community. At a guess, whatever we write for this will be slightly
wrong. If it turns out to be seriously wrong, we will fix it. I
personally tend towards language that restricts the appeals / reviews
because I would rather see a lityle too much accomplished without enough
notice / oversight rather than see things blocked if one or the other error
case comes to pass. We have to pick our risks.
At 10:13 AM 1/26/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
discussion of business deal elided.
Ietf mailing list