* I infer that the IAOC has concluded that the present
draft agreement is about as good as we are going to get,
at least without abandoning this path, discarding the
work of the last nine or ten months, and trying
something else entirely.
The inference here is that the call for consensus from the IAOC is as much
a call for consensus that the IAOC has negotiated a position that, to quote
you here, is "about as good as we are going to get".
Without being privy to these negotiation of options this is difficult for
any non-IAOC member of the IETF to respond to in any meaningful way. I am
sure that the point I raised last week about veto provisions over changes
to the trust have already been discussed at length in the negotiation
process, and the other areas of comment on this list have similarly been
considered already.
The virtual consensus question I responded to last week was along the lines
of "Is this the best of all possible outcomes for the IETF's IPR?", and my
response was "no, I do not believe so". In making that call I suspect that
the entire IAOC would also agree that this is not the best of all possible
outcomes for the IETF's IPR.
But what I have heard since then is that the virtual consensus question is
somewhat different, and appears to go along the lines of "This document, in
our view, represents the best that we have been able to negotiate on your
behalf. Are you comfortable with this as the outcome of the negotiation
process?"
I believe that I can respond in the affirmative to the latter consensus
question.
thanks,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf