--On Friday, January 09, 2009 15:25 -0800 Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: >> This is EXACTLY the approach we should be using: Formulate a >> set of goals, get agreement on them, and only then ask the >> laywers to turn that informal specification into competent >> legalese. > ... >> The difference was like night and day. > > > +1 > > That matches my experience, over the years. If my memory is correct, that was exactly the basis on which the most recent IPR WG was told to proceed. For one reason or another, it ended up expressing its ideas of the principles in the form of quasi-legal documents (or, if you prefer, documents containing legal-language statements) rather than publishing a clear statement of those principles independent of those documents. In fairness to the WG, that turned out to be easier, especially in the absence of clear consensus about which problems were most important. If the community -- and assorted ADs -- learn anything from this experience it should be, IMO, that if such a document shows up on Last Call instead of (or without) a normative statement of principles against which legal text can be checked and verified, we should Just Say No. But that discussion doesn't help much with the short-term problem. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf