Hiya,
On 11/01/17 02:34, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 01:57:51AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I thought a part of the reason
that we (IETF/IETF trust) took on the so-called "ipr" was because
we were best placed in terms of having the most healthily sceptical
attitude to the (lack of) value supposedly-inherent in that "ipr"?
There may be different reasons around the community why different
people thought it was ok for the Trust to end up holding this.
Perhaps a public mailing list is not the ideal place for me to vent^W
express my feelings about trademarks on "IANA" or related logos.
Nevertheless,
is that I don't care about the IETF trust issues and conclude that
reasonable grammar ought win in this case.
whether you care about IETF Trust issues makes no difference,
It does make a difference to me. I don't care if it makes no
difference to you/the IETF trust. (I mean that respectfully.)
because
the IETF Trustees, and only the IETF Trustees, are indivudually on the
hook for making sure their fiduciary duty with respect to the Trust
property is fulfilled. Therefore, I believe the Trust will insist
that the trademark on IANA be handled according to the agreements the
Trust has with various parties (including the IETF, note).
I also don't care about that. I respect that folks serving on
the IETF trust are doing what seems correct, but nonetheless
when correct fiduciary attitudes are just silly, I'll happily
call out and then ignore the silliness.
To be clear though, I very much do care if someone claims that
we have new rules related to IANA meaning that I-Ds have to use
language approved by the IETF trust. At that point, I do object
to the trust's actions.
But I assume you are not saying that the IETF trust's recently
inherited so-called "ipr" wins out over clear language in
I-Ds, so I'm sure it's all ok. If in fact you do think that
the so-called "ipr" infringes on I-D authors' freedom to
choose descriptive language then I really would like you to
say that clearly and to point at the IETF-consensus RFC that
specifies exactly which restrictions you claim apply.
Full disclosure: until March or the IAB removes me (whichever comes
first), I'm IAB chair, which means I'm on the IAOC, which means I'm a
Trustee. I'm offering my personal opinion, but it is informed by what
I understood IETF Trust counsel advised. Because of a bad decision
when I was younger, I am not a lawyer, and this opinion is worth what
you paid for it :)
I'll take my -0$ back then please:-)
Again, no disrespect to you or other trustees intended, but we
really ought not treat inherited silliness too nicely. And we
also ought not make a mountain out of this so-called "ipr"
molehill.
Cheers,
S.
Best regards,
A
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature