"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Its purpose is to give the IETF control of its own IPR, which
has previously been held by 3rd parties. (That's not the
legal statement of purpose in the formal Trust Agreement.)
What we then do once we have such control is then something
we can discuss and reach consensus on. Part of that
discussion is already happening in the IPR WG.
That is an interesting approach.
The reason I raised the point was that I suspect that there will be many
members of the IETF community who would prefer to have the debate on use
before they have surrendered control.
It seems this process is being rushed through before all issues are
settled or even discussed.
I'd feel more comfortable if the outbounds right issue was settled,
before all IPR is signed away to some external body that, to me, it
seem unclear whether the IETF has total control over.
The license text that went out for final review was clearly
insufficient, and would have made it impossible for the IETF community
to fix things later on. The IETF would not have been in control of
the IPR if that license would have passed.
I stress this: All past IETF IPR would appear to have been lost and
out of control for the IETF community if the initial legal document
Giving the community 3 additional days to review the revised legal
document, to identify similar problems, is ridiculous. (Brian's
announcement of the updated section 9.5 was posted on December 5th,
and the deadline extended to December 8th.)
The problem raised and the fix was non-trivial. The normal procedure
when that happens for a technical document would have been to have
another last call. It may have been wise to follow the RFC 2026
procedures when attempting to reach consensus on this work.
Please, give the community more time to review this.
Ietf mailing list