--On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 16:29 -0700 "Lucy E. Lynch"
<llynch(_at_)darkwing(_dot_)uoregon(_dot_)edu> wrote:
But any new BCP, or modification to a BCP is. And, whatever
the negotiations might be that you need to get there, this
isn't an "agreement with an outside organization", it is how
IETF IPR is managed by the IASA and an IASA-relevant
organization. A claim that such a body is "outside" seems
to me to be dubious in the extreme.
The Trust is a multi-party document (ISOC/CNRI/IETF) and the
modification to the BCP is meant to reflect a simple change in
the putative IPR holder going forward (from ISOC as defined in
BCP101 to the Trust IF such a trust should be formed). The
change moves control of the IPR closer to the IETF community.
I'm not arguing that the Trust, once formed. is "outside" but
the parties forming the Trust include "outside" bodies (ISOC
and CNRI).
Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you
are negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP
101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from
the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those
bodies and the community only on a need to know basis. The
question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG
expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP
without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is
"no", then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity
that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for
public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA
elements.
>> > Proposed IPR Trust
>> > The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement
>> > from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response.
>> > The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be
>> > sent to CNRI in early June
>
> See the regular minutes posted here:
> http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html
...
Lucy, I don't mean to be critical, but the whole IASA
arrangement was created to provide a strong and easy-to-use
framework for the community to get it work done. From my
point of view at least, that translates into keeping things
organized enough that the community does not need to read
every published set of minutes to know what is going on or to
find an important document. IASA has professional staff,
that staff should either be keeping web pages up to date or,
IMO, the IAOC has a problem which you should be solving on a
timely basis, reporting in minutes if you can't solve
immediately, etc.
I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents
that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of
documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job
applications, for example) due to sensative content or
on-going negotiations.
I apologize if this sounds like micromanagement, but, if the
IASA, which was put together in large measure to move
administrative tasks from IETF volunteers to professional staff,
requires you to maintain the web site as a volunteer, then
something is broken. That web site and its maintenance is part
of the administrative function and is required under the IASA
BCP to keep the IETF community informed. The IASA staff needs
to maintain it or make arrangements to keep it current and
comprehensive, with no excuses.
The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have
for giving some insight into our process. They are developed
from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as
they are approved.
I probably have the same comment about "volunteer scribe" that I
do about "volunteer web page". That is how we used to do
things, but it is part of the problem the IASA was formed to
solve.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf