Re: Change in IPR policies

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 10 June 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D693A08BB; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.003
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSoTPhxnVvt1; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776953A08C3; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.87.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 05AAD8RV017652 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1591784000; x=1591870400; i=@elandsys.com; bh=idrOQW9OTS5/XCBy57rOlfASvfZWJN7Xnol+j2fTJCo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RD2K4bvDTCVruFDTnwE9w59jPKb9s+EHArR9ivQLC5d/vufSsAOsYKi+SshRPc1+3 vppsxiNy3zuqWXzRQlhfU1XNtKjByv0V5EZPn0LdIXND10/g2N+Hpum2ww7+CXtA2y xYJ4ngbkVNoxUrhS0AHz7hKeaVY4JgVMc7KOwtGU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200610011446.1108faa8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 03:12:09 -0700
To: trustees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB>
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WW6qRYcwFN5wZ3mkg0XhYiucALI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:13:36 -0000

Dear IETF Trustees,

I read the IETF Trust minutes of the meeting which was held in 
March.  I could not find any discussion or decision about a change in 
IPR policies.  Was there any meeting after March?  Is there any 
impediment affecting the publication of those minutes?

I am a bit concerned when I see a change to IPR policies being made 
without the approval of the Trustees and without being given an 
opportunity to comment about a proposed change.  Was the IETF Trust 
informed about the recording and broadcasting restriction for IETF108?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy