Dear Trustees,
I agree with the message from Thomas Narten, cc:ed below. I expected,
and request that you provide, a reply to John Klensin's appeal that is
more directly responsive to the issues that John raised.
Also, I agree with John's concerns about discussion of this appeal
being moved to the tlp-interest list. I'm not on the tlp-interest
list, because I don't have the time or interest to follow a discussion
of the legal details of our licensing policy. I don't believe that I
should have to read that list to know how the Trust plans to respond
to the issues than John raised.
Margaret
On Sep 4, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether
the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
forthcoming.
Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the
appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just
move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with
clarity.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf