All -
I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one
additional week until December 2nd. Feedback to the IETF list has been
sparse, but there has been some traffic on the IPR-WG list and a few
comments directed to the IAOC. Additional clarification has been
requested on severa
Greetings -
In response to concerns raised about the licensing provisions
described in section 9.5 of the IETF Trust the Settlors have agreed to
modify the language as follows:
"9.5 Licenses.
The Trust (acting through the Trustees) shall have the right to grant
licenses for the use of the Trust
> I would like to extend the Consensus Call on the IETF Trust for one
> additional week until December 2nd.
fwiw - I think that the IPR trust is basically the right path to take
considering the circumstances but I would like to see answers to
John's issues before proceeding and join John in requ
has had a chance to comment on them - thus, while it is good to
extend the last call, I'd like to see it extended to a week after
clarifications Lucy notes in her posting have been sent to the IETF list.
yes.
it would be good to have the thing that is actually signed reflect the
consensus
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
>
> > has had a chance to comment on them - thus, while it is good to
> > extend the last call, I'd like to see it extended to a week after
> > clarifications Lucy notes in her posting have been sent to the IETF list.
>
> yes.
>
> it would be good to ha
riences in a related area, I cannot respond
affirmatively to this Consensus Call on the IETF on the document as it
currently stands.
regards,
Geoff Huston
At 09:38 AM 24/11/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Forwarded on behalf of Lucy.
Leslie.
Original Message ----
Subject: Upd
Geoff,
FWIW, when I first read the thing, I had much the same reaction
you did. I then took a further step, which I would encourage
you and others to do as well. The IAOC has concluded that this
trust arrangement is, on balance in the best interests of the
community. Perhaps for good reas
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:28:50AM -0500,
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 113 lines which said:
> The IAOC has concluded that this trust arrangement is, on balance in
> the best interests of the community.
> But, unless I misunderstand the situation, asking that the veto
--On Saturday, 26 November, 2005 22:16 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:28:50AM -0500,
> John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 113 lines which said:
>
>> The IAOC has concluded that this trust arrangement is, on
>> balance in
* I infer that the IAOC has concluded that the present
draft agreement is about as good as we are going to get,
at least without abandoning this path, discarding the
work of the last nine or ten months, and trying
something else entirely.
The inference
--On mandag, november 28, 2005 12:41:43 +1100 Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The virtual consensus question I responded to last week was along the
lines of "Is this the best of all possible outcomes for the IETF's
IPR?", and my response was "no, I do not believe so". In making that
All -
The amended language for Section 9.5 (Licensing) of the IETF Trust was
posted to the IETF lists on December 1st and the IETF Trust FAQ has
been updated to reflect the new text (see below). We have also added
additional details on the handling of historical data. As we develop
procedures for
12 matches
Mail list logo
