Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
John C Klensin wrote: ... Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community only on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is no, then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements. On a point of information, the last call for this draft (-01 version) ended on September 22, and the -02 version is the update according to the very few last call comments received. The diffs can be seen at http://www.ops.ietf.org/Diff-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-01_txt-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02_txt.htm Now as to John's point, it's one I and the IESG are very sensitive to. However, Lucy has explained why the IAOC's hands are tied. I can't tell you what the IESG will decide in tomorrow's telechat. For the record, I'm recused from the ballot. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
Brian, This is a fine document. Perhaps appropriately, it doesn't say much of anything. Is the actual trust agreement a secret, or does the IETF and IASA intend to make it public before the IESG approves it? Will there be an IETF Last Call that includes an opportunity to review the document itself? I note that the IASA web pages don't mention this at all except for a paragraph under Draft Agreements. That says Proposed IPR Trust The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response. The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be sent to CNRI in early June And is presumably a bit out of date, given comments in the monthly report you circulated. And, referring to that report, it also discusses new draft engagement agreements with Counsel and other draft agreements which are not mentioned on the IASA web site, much less available there. I am sure all of this is fine, but the agreement with the community when IASA was formed was that all of these things would be public to the extent possible. To the extent to which few or none of them appear to be available, and the IASA/IAOC does not seem to be able to keep its own web pages current and the community informed that way, rather than via just overview monthly reports, I think it should be a matter of concern to all of us. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: Brian, This is a fine document. Perhaps appropriately, it doesn't say much of anything. Is the actual trust agreement a secret, or does the IETF and IASA intend to make it public before the IESG approves it? Will there be an IETF Last Call that includes an opportunity to review the document itself? The actual document is still in review and and the on-going discussions are privileged as they invole outside parties. I've just sent a summary of our framework to the list (you anticipated me by a few minutes). The document falls under the contracts or equivalent instruments with outside organizations and IPR related duties of the IASA as outlined in section 3 of BCP 101 and as I understand this section is not subject to IETF Last Call. We are making our best efforts to relay information as it becomes available. I note that the IASA web pages don't mention this at all except for a paragraph under Draft Agreements. That says Proposed IPR Trust The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response. The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be sent to CNRI in early June See the regular minutes posted here: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html And is presumably a bit out of date, given comments in the monthly report you circulated. And, referring to that report, it also discusses new draft engagement agreements with Counsel and other draft agreements which are not mentioned on the IASA web site, much less available there. again, please see the minutes. I am sure all of this is fine, but the agreement with the community when IASA was formed was that all of these things would be public to the extent possible. To the extent to which few or none of them appear to be available, and the IASA/IAOC does not seem to be able to keep its own web pages current and the community informed that way, rather than via just overview monthly reports, I think it should be a matter of concern to all of us. we are working within the confines of to the extent possible and hope to be able to share the document soon. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
--On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 15:41 -0700 Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: Brian, This is a fine document. Perhaps appropriately, it doesn't say much of anything. Is the actual trust agreement a secret, or does the IETF and IASA intend to make it public before the IESG approves it? Will there be an IETF Last Call that includes an opportunity to review the document itself? The actual document is still in review and and the on-going discussions are privileged as they invole outside parties. I've just sent a summary of our framework to the list (you anticipated me by a few minutes). The document falls under the contracts or equivalent instruments with outside organizations and IPR related duties of the IASA as outlined in section 3 of BCP 101 and as I understand this section is not subject to IETF Last Call. But any new BCP, or modification to a BCP is. And, whatever the negotiations might be that you need to get there, this isn't an agreement with an outside organization, it is how IETF IPR is managed by the IASA and an IASA-relevant organization. A claim that such a body is outside seems to me to be dubious in the extreme. So, while IASA can probably form the trust in private and tell us what has been agreed later, changing the BCP to shift the IETF's rights designations from ISOC to something else requires, IMO clearly, IETF community approval, just as the decisions to shift things _to_ ISOC did. And whether the community would be willing to agree to the draft Brian posted without being able to see _exactly_ how the trust is structured... well, I guess one could try to find out. We are making our best efforts to relay information as it becomes available. Understood and appreciated. I note that the IASA web pages don't mention this at all except for a paragraph under Draft Agreements. That says Proposed IPR Trust The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response. The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be sent to CNRI in early June See the regular minutes posted here: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html And is presumably a bit out of date, given comments in the monthly report you circulated. And, referring to that report, it also discusses new draft engagement agreements with Counsel and other draft agreements which are not mentioned on the IASA web site, much less available there. again, please see the minutes. Lucy, I don't mean to be critical, but the whole IASA arrangement was created to provide a strong and easy-to-use framework for the community to get it work done. From my point of view at least, that translates into keeping things organized enough that the community does not need to read every published set of minutes to know what is going on or to find an important document. IASA has professional staff, that staff should either be keeping web pages up to date or, IMO, the IAOC has a problem which you should be solving on a timely basis, reporting in minutes if you can't solve immediately, etc. I am sure all of this is fine, but the agreement with the community when IASA was formed was that all of these things would be public to the extent possible. To the extent to which few or none of them appear to be available, and the IASA/IAOC does not seem to be able to keep its own web pages current and the community informed that way, rather than via just overview monthly reports, I think it should be a matter of concern to all of us. we are working within the confines of to the extent possible and hope to be able to share the document soon. Thank you. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 15:41 -0700 Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, John C Klensin wrote: Brian, This is a fine document. Perhaps appropriately, it doesn't say much of anything. Is the actual trust agreement a secret, or does the IETF and IASA intend to make it public before the IESG approves it? Will there be an IETF Last Call that includes an opportunity to review the document itself? The actual document is still in review and and the on-going discussions are privileged as they invole outside parties. I've just sent a summary of our framework to the list (you anticipated me by a few minutes). The document falls under the contracts or equivalent instruments with outside organizations and IPR related duties of the IASA as outlined in section 3 of BCP 101 and as I understand this section is not subject to IETF Last Call. But any new BCP, or modification to a BCP is. And, whatever the negotiations might be that you need to get there, this isn't an agreement with an outside organization, it is how IETF IPR is managed by the IASA and an IASA-relevant organization. A claim that such a body is outside seems to me to be dubious in the extreme. The Trust is a multi-party document (ISOC/CNRI/IETF) and the modification to the BCP is meant to reflect a simple change in the putative IPR holder going forward (from ISOC as defined in BCP101 to the Trust IF such a trust should be formed). The change moves control of the IPR closer to the IETF community. I'm not arguing that the Trust, once formed. is outside but the parties forming the Trust include outside bodies (ISOC and CNRI). So, while IASA can probably form the trust in private and tell us what has been agreed later, changing the BCP to shift the IETF's rights designations from ISOC to something else requires, IMO clearly, IETF community approval, just as the decisions to shift things _to_ ISOC did. And whether the community would be willing to agree to the draft Brian posted without being able to see _exactly_ how the trust is structured... well, I guess one could try to find out. We are making our best efforts to relay information as it becomes available. Understood and appreciated. I note that the IASA web pages don't mention this at all except for a paragraph under Draft Agreements. That says Proposed IPR Trust The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response. The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be sent to CNRI in early June See the regular minutes posted here: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html And is presumably a bit out of date, given comments in the monthly report you circulated. And, referring to that report, it also discusses new draft engagement agreements with Counsel and other draft agreements which are not mentioned on the IASA web site, much less available there. again, please see the minutes. Lucy, I don't mean to be critical, but the whole IASA arrangement was created to provide a strong and easy-to-use framework for the community to get it work done. From my point of view at least, that translates into keeping things organized enough that the community does not need to read every published set of minutes to know what is going on or to find an important document. IASA has professional staff, that staff should either be keeping web pages up to date or, IMO, the IAOC has a problem which you should be solving on a timely basis, reporting in minutes if you can't solve immediately, etc. I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job applications, for example) due to sensative content or on-going negotiations. The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have for giving some insight into our process. They are developed from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as they are approved. I am sure all of this is fine, but the agreement with the community when IASA was formed was that all of these things would be public to the extent possible. To the extent to which few or none of them appear to be available, and the IASA/IAOC does not seem to be able to keep its own web pages current and the community informed that way, rather than via just overview monthly reports, I think it should be a matter of concern to all of us. we are working within the confines of to the extent possible and hope to be able to share the document soon. Thank you. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
--On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 16:29 -0700 Lucy E. Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But any new BCP, or modification to a BCP is. And, whatever the negotiations might be that you need to get there, this isn't an agreement with an outside organization, it is how IETF IPR is managed by the IASA and an IASA-relevant organization. A claim that such a body is outside seems to me to be dubious in the extreme. The Trust is a multi-party document (ISOC/CNRI/IETF) and the modification to the BCP is meant to reflect a simple change in the putative IPR holder going forward (from ISOC as defined in BCP101 to the Trust IF such a trust should be formed). The change moves control of the IPR closer to the IETF community. I'm not arguing that the Trust, once formed. is outside but the parties forming the Trust include outside bodies (ISOC and CNRI). Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community only on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is no, then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements. Proposed IPR Trust The IAOC received on May 5th a new draft Trust Agreement from CNRI and is in the process of preparing a response. The IAOC expects that a revised Trust Agreement will be sent to CNRI in early June See the regular minutes posted here: http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/2.html ... Lucy, I don't mean to be critical, but the whole IASA arrangement was created to provide a strong and easy-to-use framework for the community to get it work done. From my point of view at least, that translates into keeping things organized enough that the community does not need to read every published set of minutes to know what is going on or to find an important document. IASA has professional staff, that staff should either be keeping web pages up to date or, IMO, the IAOC has a problem which you should be solving on a timely basis, reporting in minutes if you can't solve immediately, etc. I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job applications, for example) due to sensative content or on-going negotiations. I apologize if this sounds like micromanagement, but, if the IASA, which was put together in large measure to move administrative tasks from IETF volunteers to professional staff, requires you to maintain the web site as a volunteer, then something is broken. That web site and its maintenance is part of the administrative function and is required under the IASA BCP to keep the IETF community informed. The IASA staff needs to maintain it or make arrangements to keep it current and comprehensive, with no excuses. The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have for giving some insight into our process. They are developed from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as they are approved. I probably have the same comment about volunteer scribe that I do about volunteer web page. That is how we used to do things, but it is part of the problem the IASA was formed to solve. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IPR Trust - draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02 and the IASA
On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 08:08:02 PM -0400 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community only on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is no, then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements. I think you mean If that answer is 'yes', I would hope that whatever trust agreement is reached provides for the same level of openness that we require of the IAOC. Obviously we won't know until we see the final trust agreement. I don't see how the IETF can possibly be expected to approve the proposed changes to BCP 101 without seeing that document. I also believe it would be inappropriate for the trust to be formed and handed all of the IETF's IPR until those changes have been approved. So, it seems to me like the process has to go something like this: 1) IAOC and CNRI reach a mutually-acceptable Trust Agreement 2) IAOC makes that document available to the IETF 3) IETF Last Call on the BCP 101 changes 4) Publish new BCP 101 5) Form the trust, using the agreement published in (2) I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job applications, for example) due to sensative content or on-going negotiations. I apologize if this sounds like micromanagement, but, if the IASA, which was put together in large measure to move administrative tasks from IETF volunteers to professional staff, requires you to maintain the web site as a volunteer, then something is broken. That web site and its maintenance is part of the administrative function and is required under the IASA BCP to keep the IETF community informed. The IASA staff needs to maintain it or make arrangements to keep it current and comprehensive, with no excuses. Cut them some slack, John. Last I checked, the IASA didn't have a professional staff; it had one person. The document I remember didn't require the ISOC to provide staff to maintain the IASA's web site, take minutes, etc, and it didn't empower the IAD to hire such staff, either. They're supposed to contract that stuff out to competent entities, and that process is still just starting. In the meantime, assuming that all of the documents that can be made available are, as Lucy says they are, then I don't think lack of a professional webmaster is preventing the IASA from meeting its reporting obligations. The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have for giving some insight into our process. They are developed from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as they are approved. I probably have the same comment about volunteer scribe that I do about volunteer web page. That is how we used to do things, but it is part of the problem the IASA was formed to solve. See above, but more so. I understand the IESG benefits enormously from having agendas, minutes, and the like handled by a professional who I'm told is very good at what she does. Maybe the IAOC would benefit in the same way, and maybe not, but I think that's something we can safely let them figure out for themselves. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
