Subject: Re: Update: IETF Trust Consensus Call

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:30:20 -0500 (EST)

> 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 requesting that
the IETF get a commitment that the trust documents will not
be signed until those answers have been posted and the community
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.

Scott

------
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 several points related to future Licensing of IPR held by
the IETF Trust and on the exact nature and disposition of both Current
and Historical data as defined in Schedule A.

The combination of IETF 64, WSIS related travel, and the coming US
holiday has made it hard for all three parties to the IETF Trust
(CNRI/ISOC/IAOC) to coordinate our responses on these two issues. We
hope to have clarifying text on the Licensing issue and updates for
the FAQ shortly, and will publish before 12/2/05. Watch this space:
http://koi.uoregon.edu/~iaoc/

Thanks to all who have made comments, and we will keep you posted.

Lucy E. Lynch                           Academic User Services
Computing Center                        University of Oregon
llynch  @darkwing.uoregon.edu           (541) 346-1774

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:46:38 -0800

> 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 that is being called for.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: "Lucy E. Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 17:13:00 -0800 (PST)

> consensus that is being called for.

ack, that is our intention, we're trying to fit the Consensus Call
into the timeframe we had planned for the closing so we'll try to
move quickly on text.

- lel