Re: [Gendispatch] I-D Action: trust assets, draft-eggert-ietf-and-trust-00.txt

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Rob Sayre  <[e-mail]> said:
>> Anyway - maintaining the asset register is an operational matter. It
>> should not be the target of a BCP.
>
>The document seems to say they aren't doing that maintenance. I am not sure
>why anyone would disagree on that point.

As the guy who pushed the trust to set up the asset register a few
years ago, I find the document's assertion both uncalled for and
offensive. Is there some reason neither of the authors nor anyone else
who is interested was able to ask any of the trustees about it?

For over a decade there was no asset register at all (the executive
director we were paying at the time never got around to it) and I
realized it was an obvious gap in our documents.

As far as I know, the asset register is complete other than perhaps
one or two recent copyright licenses from authors of early RFCs.

If you're wondering where the copyright or license info is for all of
the pre-3978 RFCs, other than a handful of licenses from ISI and a few
of the authors, there isn't any. As Joel noted, attempting to
determine the status of early RFCs would be a hugely expensive and
unproductive exercise in frustration. In a few cases I doubt that
anything short of a suit in a US federal court would resolve it (look
at RFC 20) and I hope none of us want to go there.

I am also baffled at the adversarial tone of this document, and the
ahistorical way it ignores the Trust's unique history as an entity
specifically set up to not be part of either ISOC or CNRI.

R's,
John