Lucy and IAOC,
I've reviewed the notes on the list, the FAQs, the Settlor
agreements, and what I assume is the new 9.5 text. First of
all, I'd like to express thanks to the IAOC for being willing to
open the agreement up to community review, comment, and approval
and for making changes that process seemed to call for. I think
that, as the result of this process, critical provisions of the
document are vastly better than they were and hope that the IAOC
and the rest of the community agree.
Some of the provisions of the current version are not what I
would have preferred in a more perfect world. On the other
hand, in such a world, I don't know whether we would have the
Trust model at all and certainly would have preferred that the
IAOC not spend a large fraction of the last year negotiating it.
But this is not, as we all know, a perfect world. Given the
actual world in which we live, it is as important to know where
to stop, approve a document, and move on, rather than letting
the quest for perfection drag things out and block other
important tasks.
It appears to me that we have reached that point. I would urge
others to consider whether more discussion and tuning is really
worth the possible benefits.
The more recent discussion about the rights the IETF might have
and want to grant seems largely irrelevant to the Trust
agreement given the new wording (it did not appear irrelevant
under the old agreement). It seems to me that the IETF (or the
IASA, or either or both Settlors) might lay full or partial
claim to two fundamentally different types of IPR:
(i) Materials associated with the development, approval,
or publication of standards. These are materials
contributed to the IETF by its participants or prepared
for the IETF, under contract or other arrangement, in
support of those materials. Those materials now appear
to be excluded from the scope of 9.5. I say "appear"
under the IANAL disclaimer, but, if counsel has advised
the IAOC that the wording is adequate, then I think that
case is taken care of.
(ii) Materials associated with, or developed as a
consequence of, the operation of the IETF or
administration of the standards process. Those
materials might be developed under contract, or might
include documents or tools contributed to the IETF to
make its processes more efficient. These are the
materials that appear to be covered under 9.5 now and,
as far as I can tell, they are not covered at all by RFC
3979. Even in my most vivid imaginings, I cannot
imagine a legitimate purpose for which another body
would want most of that stuff, much less one under which
a "share alike" provision would be clearly
inappropriate. Exceptions might occur with tools or
similar material contributed to the IETF, but the
solution there is for the author to reserve some rights,
giving the IETF/IASA only the right to use the tools and
perhaps to modify them for specialized purposes. So
while, in principle, I would prefer to see no
restrictions on the choices the IETF might make, I don't
see these restrictions as having any significant impact.
So, from my point of view, while the IPR Licensing debate should
continue in its own right, we have gotten past the point at
which it has enough interaction with the Trust to justify
holding the latter up.
In conclusion, I think we have reached the point at which it is
appropriate to approve this thing and get one with the
standards-creation and definition business of the IETF.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf