Re: [Ianaplan] numbers community plan

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

Comment at the end.

At 08:39 13/01/2015, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>On 2015/01/13 04:36, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>Eliot,
>>>Obviously IPR can impact us.  We should stay focused on the impact to
>>>the IETF.  Discussions that don't impact the IETF seem better homed in
>>>the other communities.
>>
>>Correct, but if the IETF Trust is asked (as seems possible) to accept
>>IPR that affects the names and numbers communities as well as the IETF,
>>then they (the Trust) will need clear input from the IETF, since the
>>sole beneficiary of the Trust is "the IETF as a whole". (They will also
>>need legal and tax advice to be sure that they will not violate
>>the Trust Agreement and 501(c)(3) status.)
>>
>>I think this WG would be the obvious sounding board for that discussion,
>>but there's not much point in crossing that bridge until we come to it,
>>i.e. a specific request is made to the Trust from outside the IETF.
>
>Agreed.
>
>I'd note that one reason that was brought up for not saying anything 
>about the IETF Trust in the draft we worked on was that we didn't 
>want to impose that on the other communities. At least for the 
>numbers community, that obstacle clearly is out of the way.
>
>Regards,   Martin.

The BCP 78 USIETF Trust licence and IPRs being the main issue from a 
Libre's and Open Use perspective, this exchange does clarify the 
intent.  It frees from any obligations those who want the catenet and 
the internet to be public domain, i.e. omnistakeholder and 
independent from the laws and policy of every specific country.
jfc