Carl Malamud wrote:
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
money and IPR, if the termination clauses aren't in the BCP. In any
case it would be very short.
In terms of the ink, you can go that route if you want, but having this
bcp go through the entire public bcp procedure and then get voted on by
the isoc board in a meeting with minutes makes a pretty conclusive
case that you have an agreement. I don't think a judge is going to
throw this out because you didn't use a #2 pencil or blue ink. :)
In terms of clauses, it seems to me that if you're going to do termination
clauses, or anything else with that kind of substance, they need to
get into the BCP. You really want a single chartering document for
the activity. And, my "sense of the room" is that people aren't
going to be happy to put this doc to bed only to start a similar
exercise right up. :)
Let's get the substance into the one doc. You brought up termination clauses.
If you're doing that, you probably want a mandatory arbitration/mediation
or other conflict resolution clause. You could certainly leave
those both out and have a nice agreement, but it sort of sounds to me
like enough people want to face those issues now.
The termination clause is in section 7 of the -01 draft and seems fine
to me.
I'm not sure about dispute resolution. We surely don't want to specify
applicable jurisdiction or predefine an arbitrator, do we? I'm
inclined to leave it out.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf