ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

2009-08-19 15:08:04
Tadayuki,

I read your email and am totally scratching my head - not sure where you're
going with that at all.

A point was made earlier by Marc as to what the case would be for an
emergency process to what should be a stabilized process requiring
thoughtful and consistent consideration. I do not know if that question has
been answered; I believe that's the question that really should be answered
here. Why would we need an emergency provision (under what circumstances)?
Also, with the idea of emergency provisions will we identify what qualifies
an issue as falling under the umbrella of requiring this type of
consideration?

My apologies if these questions have been answered; reading Marc's post I
found myself agreeing on the fuzziness of the whole issue.

Regards,

Endre Jarraux Walls

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:14 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Working Group Chairs
Cc: Trustees; Internet Research Steering Group; IAB IAB; IESG;
ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP)


Dear experts,

Generally, the idea of "provision" includes a kind of "bad debt allowance"
in accounting. How about expanding the idea of  "Trust Legal Provision"?

Gathering statistically of mathematical probability of how setting for bad
debt allowance could be a kind of measurement of ability of estimation
by executives of a corporation.

The best way to growup equity is good choice of executives according to
the ability of estimation.

Standard deviation of probability of adequateness of setting of provisions,
or bad debt allowance at begining could be useful for making the world to
be more better.

I THINK.

regards,

Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme(_at_)americafree(_dot_)tv>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Working Group Chairs" 
<wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Trustees" <trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Internet Research Steering 
Group" 
<irsg(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>; "IAB IAB" <iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org>; "IESG" 
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 
<ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "RFC Editor" 
<rfc-editor(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)


Greetings;

During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
it became clear that there is no clear
procedure for modifying the TLP.  The current TLP only states that a new
version may be published for community review but not who can ask for  a 
change,
where announcements are sent, where the changes can be discussed and  many
other things.  As a consequence, there have been questions about why  the 
IETF Trust is proposing changes to the TLP, the problems that the  changes

fix, and the consequences of the changes.

In order to solve this problem, we have drafted a conceptual procedure 
for modifying
the TLP in the future.  This procedure can be found below.  We want to 
engage in a dialogue on these general concepts. Note that in items 
1,2,3,4 and 6, there is an implicit "Or" between each of the choices.

Assuming that consensus on the general ideas can be reached, the Trust
will submit a document describing this process in mid-September, 2009.  I 
invite
interested parties to read and comment. This will be disseminated to  the 
IETF Discuss and announce list, WG Chairs list, the old IPR WG  List, the 
RFC Editor List and the IESG, IAB and IRSG lists. Please  feel free to 
disseminate it to other interested parties, and please  let me know if I 
left out a suitable list to alert.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

-----------------------------------------------------
Comments sought for:  Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP

1. An issue with the current TLP is identified:
   a. (Some subset of) the community wants something different from
      what the TLP currently says.
   b. The trust (or its legal counsel) finds a problem itself.
   c. There is a request from one of the other bodies (IRTF, IAB, IESG,
      independent stream, etc) for which the trust manages something.

2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement.
   a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID  from a 
WG
      chartered to discuss these items.
   b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community.
   c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue.

3. Is it really a problem?
   a. If the problem statement was developed in a group effort, then  it 
is by
      default.
   b. All other cases, including issues brought up by the Trust 
themselves,
      a short comment period (2 weeks).

4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a 
response:
   a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ...

   b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with
      some background material why this is the answer).

5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or decision 
not
   to change).

   The trust will engage in discussion with the community.

   If the comments show a clear trend indicating that the proposal  needs
   a revision, the Trust may withdraw or modify the proposal, publish  it
   and reset the counter before the comment period is over.

6. Trust evaluates responses.  Possible outcomes are:
   a. There is consensus about the change => Go to 7.
   b. There is consensus but textual changes are needed =>
      Trust modifies the text, go back step 5, but with a 14 day
      review period.
   c. There is no consensus => drop proposal (and explain why).

7. Publish new TLP.

Announcements: All announcements to go to the ietf-announce list plus
  the equivalent for the other streams.  Discussion will take place
  on the TLP mailing list.

Emergencies.  An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
  TLP that is likely to be abused".  In these cases, the trust can 
publish
  a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP.  The
  Trust must explain the reason for the change.

Appeals: use the process from RFC 4071 for the IAOC, with IAOC
  replaced by Trust.

  If a member of the community is not satisfied with the Trusts's
  response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the
  issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the
  appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC 2026].  If he or she is
  not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue
  to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026.




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4346 (20090818) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4346 (20090818) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf