Hi. First I'd like to start off by saying that I think Carl's
document is a very good start for discussing these options.
I support the recommendations made in section 3. I believe they are
well justified and would be a great step in the right direction.
Section 3 talks about clarifying the intellectual property ownership
of the IETF's IP. One important area of IP ownership was not covered:
the tools developed to perform the clerk function. I believe that the
IETF should work to own these tools for several reasons. It will
facilitate easier transitions from one vendor to another. It will
facilitate accepting volunteer improvements to these tools. Finally,
the IETF could make these tools available to other groups trying to
solve similar problems. I suspect that these benefits would justify
any additional expense involved in owning these tools rather than
treating the clerk function purely as a service. Perhaps I'm wrong; I
certainly feel that the IETF should explicitly understand what value
it is getting if it decides to allow someone else to own tools
developed to solve IETF needs.
I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good idea. I
believe that plenary time is full enough without crowding it more.
I'm concerned that the document doesn't really motivate Scenario C or
D. It does describe them and it does list some of the disadvantages.
However it doesn't really explain why they are on the table at all. I
think they should be on the table; people have made arguments to that
effect here. However the document doesn't do a sufficiently good job
of capturing these arguments to explain why these options are
sufficiently credible as to be worth examining. Where did the idea of
forming a corporation come from; why would we want to do it again?
Thanks for your consideration,
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf