Bob, I appreciate your interest in working with the IETF to establish
the IASA. I also appreciate your interest in improving the BCP.
I have been disappointed that you have been sending revised comments
on the IPR issue over the last two weeks. However you have not been
engaging in a discussion with the community. You revise your text,
but you do not respond to our questions or engage in active
discussion.
I still do not understand what you are trying to accomplish or what
concerns you have.
Let me try and explain what I believe the BCP says. Rather than just
telling me what you think the BCP ought to say, why not engage us all
in a dialogue about the current problems and about why you think what
we are doing is the wrong approach.
It's my understanding that the IASA is within ISOC. As a consequence
of that when we say to the rest of the world that IASA manages the
IETF's IPR interests, we actually say that ISOC manages those
interests.
There's an obvious question: why do we not say that ISOC manages our
IPR interests?
Well in addition to telling the rest of the world how our IPR works,
we're telling ISOC how we want them to manage the IPR internally. We
tell them we want it to be an IASA function. That means that other
parts of ISOC would need to work with IASA if they wanted to use that
IPR. Clearly this is purely an internal ISOC matter at a legal level.
So in other words the BCP is intended to be useful both to the world
at large and to establish some internal ISOC guidance with the
cooperation of the ISOC BOT.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf