Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your review and comments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378 Problem

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

John:

> > I think that the cover note from the Chair of the IETF Trust,
> > Ed Juskevicius, included the vast bulk of the information that
> > you are requesting.
>
>Russ,  I think your note addresses several more of the issues I
>was concerned about than Ed's note did.  Assuming that your note
>represents the consensus of the Trustees where that is relevant,
>I don't see any reason to quibble about that point.
>
>More to the point, while I think I disagree with parts of your
>analysis, the disagreements, if any, are in areas that should
>not block progress at this point, i.e., I can live with your
>interpretation without any need to dispute those differences.
>
>I do have a comment on (3) in context...
>
> > (3)  "with the advice of Counsel, we believe that this fix
> > represents
> > a competent, best-efforts, legal-text representation of that
> > principle
> > and nothing else".
> >
> > The cover note does not address all of these points.  The
> > Trustees did seek legal advice, and Counsel fully support this
> > work-around.  As you might imagine, Counsel was heavily
> > involved in the discussions as well as the words themselves.
> > The Trustees are trying to provide a near-term work-around
> > within the current BCPs and nothing else.
>
>Good. However, what I was looking for was assurance from Counsel
>that he had done an in-depth analysis of the language and
>concluded that it was both necessary and sufficient to address
>and solve (or work around) the problem.  That is different from
>"supporting the work-around", "involved in the discussions", etc.
>
>Ekr's recent note points out part of the problem that I believe
>that Counsel should have caught (and would have caught if asked
>the right question).   The intent, as ekr and I understand it
>and as I think your and Ed's note indicated, was to eliminate
>the requirement that authors make any assertions at all about
>work other than their own, much less requiring that they
>guarantee those assertions.  Perhaps, for a document some of
>whose text predates 5378, I am certain about the origins of all
>of the text and can make assertions about it and about whether
>or not everyone has signed off.  But, if I am not, I should not
>be required to make assertions, one way or the other, that
>require that I claim and take responsibility for, complete
>knowledge.  Even if I am willing to take responsibility for
>identify all of the relevant Contributors, unless there is a
>compelling reason that I haven't heard yet, we should not be
>requiring authors to search the Trust's archives to determine
>who has signed off, who has not, and whether the statements they
>made in signing off are sufficient to meet the conditions of
>5378 as modified by the workaround.
>
>So I strongly support the general thrust of ekr's proposed
>modified text rather than the text as posted.  If a change is
>made that is consistent with the general principle that authors
>who know that they are working on documents that contain
>pre-5378 text, text about which others might make claims, do not
>need to make any affirmative assertions at all about the IPR
>status of that other work.

Counsel certainly reviewed the text, but like many groups, there was 
input from several individuals coming in at roughly the same 
time.  One of the portions the text that EKR is concerned about 
resulted from edits that I suggested.  I do not agree with some 
aspects of his interpretation, but that is not important because I 
think his suggested words are even better.  This is the point of the 
community review.  I'm pleased to support them.

Russ

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf