Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 24 June 2009 14:39 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CFE3A6CA0; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oV+-eHakrCs; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970FA3A6C89; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1MJSsX-0002W8-De; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:51:09 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:51:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
Message-ID: <D4439F022D91243BEC57088E@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <003601c9f4bb$52a24e00$0601a8c0@allison>
References: <B7008260-2BA6-4529-B4F6-1D0D3D9E7AEA@americafree.tv> <87y6rjl71b.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4B6B5BD406D71F18567967CB@PST.JCK.COM> <87hby7ufva.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <003601c9f4bb$52a24e00$0601a8c0@allison>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Trustees <trustees@ietf.org>, ietf list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Jun 2009 14:39:47 -0000
--On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:25 +0200 "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >> I don't think you are alone with that impression. The >> process you outline (posting preliminary versions in draft-* >> form) sounds great to me. > > Mmmmm ... I think that one thing that the ipr working group > got absolutey right was the decision not to try and craft > legally suitable wording for intellectual property rights, > rather delegating that task. We certainly agree about that. Indeed, I believe that, having agreed to that principle, the IPR WG went too far toward drafting legal language. > This sounds like a suggestion to restart the ipr wg, perhaps > in the hope of getting a different outcome:-) No, at least not from me. But the intention was that the IPR WG establish principles for the IETF Track and then pass those principles to the Trustees and IAOC, and have them implemented in legal language, etc. To the extent to which they got near the other tracks, they were expected to be completely consistent with the boundaries established by RFC 4484 and prior practice. The WG did that job, independent of how one feels about the decisions made and the quality of consensus about some of them. I'm not questioning the WG process or decisions here. However, this document contains provisions that are inconsistent with WG guidance, inconsistent with 4844, or both. Those provisions also permit the Trust to take arbitrary actions in the future with little transparency and no accountability. One can certainly question that without trying to restart the IPR WG or any similar effort. > I would however agree with the suggestion that a complicated > (to me as a lay person) document should be accompanied by a > non-legally binding lay explanation, eg as to why it is > thought suitable to cut the review period from 28 to 14 days, > or why a reference to the BSD licence should be thought > adequate. Of course, the latter is appropriate for a lay explanation. To the extent to which the Trustees discussed the various alternatives (noting that none of the actual Trustee are, as far as I know, lawyers either), that is also appropriate because it is not clear that anyone delegated that particular decision to the Trustees and the community needs that information to evaluate the proposal. On the other hand, the 28 -> 14 change isn't a legal matter at all. It is simply a matter of IETF procedure and relationship with the IASA. While I think it represents depressingly poor judgment and that it may be a symptom of the degree to which the IASA has gotten out of touch with the community, I see nothing improper with their proposing a 14 day review period or, if they like, a three day review period to us... as long as we can say "no". john
- Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provis… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [IAB] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Le… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Russ Housley
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… John C Klensin
- RE: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Contreras, Jorge
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Simon Josefsson
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Andrew Sullivan
- RE: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Yaakov Stein
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Simon Josefsson
- RE: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Yaakov Stein
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Sam Hartman
- RE: [Trustees] [IAB] Proposed Revisions to the IE… Contreras, Jorge
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Robert Elz
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Tom.Petch
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Tom.Petch
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… Simon Josefsson
- RE: [Trustees] [IAB] Proposed Revisions to the IE… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Pr… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Marshall Eubanks
- Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed Revi… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IE… Russ Housley
- Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IE… Doug Ewell
- Re: [IAB] [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IE… Russ Housley
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… John C Klensin
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Fred Baker
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Tru… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed … Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed … Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal/Request for Review (was: Re: Proposed … Marshall Eubanks