[client com] [Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IANA IPR License and Community Agreement
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 23:06:32 UTC 2016
Resending without most cc's, since the mail software blocked this for
having too many recipients.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> A few brief replies inline.
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Hi Greg,
>> I am speaking for myself and _not_ for the Trust here. The Trust has
>> not yet expressed a view of the position that the names community is
>> taking, and I don't want anyone to mistake my remarks below as a
>> position of the Trust. But I too was involved in the discussions that
>> led to the Principal Terms and I think we may have different memories.
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 04:33:09AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> > comments and also find them somewhat troubling. The "Proposed Principal
>> > Terms of IANA Intellectual Property Agreements" document was worked out
>> > among representatives of all the communities and the IETF Trust over
>> > months, and these comments seem to ignore or contradict many aspects of
>> > that document, which formed the design and basis for preparing the
>> > Community Agreement and License Agreement.
>> I agree that we want to be true to the Principal Terms, but I think we
>> need to be very careful with attempting to rely too hard on that
>> document, because it also makes perfectly clear that the Trust is the
>> ultimate controller here and that it is not subject to the CCG.
>> I believe that the original drafts that were offered cleave to that
>> principal, and that the position you are taking leans further toward
>> empowering the CCG to direct the Trust in various ways. I also recall
>> several occasions during the development of the Principal Terms in
>> which you argued for a more formal or more supervisory role for the
>> OCs -- a position that I and others then resisted as implying
>> unacceptable modifications to the Trust Agreement or else to the way
>> the Trust actually operates. It appears to me, if I may be quite
>> frank, that you are attempting to reintroduce your position as part of
>> the negotiations over this agreement. You're free to do that, but I
>> am no more reconciled to that mode of working now than I was many
>> months ago when we were hammering out the Principal Terms.
> My view is somewhat different. I think the first draft backed away from
> a number of aspects of the Principal Terms. I think the Principal Terms
> represented the balance and outcome of the discussions we all had about the
> relative roles of the Trust and the communities/CCG. The intent of the
> second draft was to move closer to the letter and concept of the Principal
> Terms. If there are places where we missed the mark as well, I'm sure we
> can correct for that together. I'll also say again that there are very few
> instances where the CCG actually directs the Trust; in almost all
> instances, the Trust takes the initiative subject to advice and approval
> (but not in all cases) from the CCG.
>> I believe I was crystal clear all along that the Trust needed to
>> retain its abolute and independent control over the marks and domain
>> names, because the advice I have is that that is the only way that the
>> Trustees can ensure their ability to perform their fiduciary duty.
>> Speaking as someone on the pointy end of that duty, I feel the
> responsibility quite strongly. I believe that the Principal Terms say
>> that the Trust holds the ultimate authority, and I do not believe that
>> the draft you have circulated is quite as faithful to those Terms as
>> you suggest. The Terms were always ambiguous on this matter, however,
>> because we knew this was where the trouble was going to be.
> I think what we need to do here is strike the right balance between the
> CCG and the Trust.
> I would say that we're not there yet, and that the answer lies somewhere
> between the two drafts, so that we carry out the intentions of the
> Principal Terms and the plans that preceded it, while respecting the
> concerns of all parties.
>> This is
>> why many months ago I was pressing for us to move on to actual
>> drafting, rather than polishing the Terms document until it was shiny.
>> We chose not to do that, and now we have this problem.
>> I'm confident that with good will all around we can come to an
>> agreement in time. But to me, that agreement should not vest too much
>> responsibility or authority in the CCG. The normal mode of operation
>> of the IETF is to create bodies that do such work as is absolutely
>> necessary, and no more. I think it's a good approach, and I think we
>> should design an agreement here that encourages and maximises
>> collaboration and minimises formal approval and authority.
> I also think we can get this done, and that there should not be "too
> much" authority vested in the CCG/communities. But neither should there be
> too little. I like the idea of encouraging and maximizing collaboration
> and minimizing formal approval and authority. The more we can avoid
> hierarchy -- in either direction -- the better. But collaboration requires
> some shared responsibility and authority and the right balance between the
> parties. That is the key.
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cwg-client