[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IPR Memo

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 02:40:56PM +0000, David Conrad wrote:

> Well, yes. However, if the basis of an aspect of a proposal doesn't appear
> to make sense and that that problem isn't identified until after people
> have time to sit down and actually think about stuff, it seems a bit odd
> to me to say "oh well, you had your chance to fix it months ago."

With respect, the idea that anyone didn't "have time" to think about
this since the CRISP proposal was available ages ago is preposterous.
Everyone knew that this was an issue, and people discussed it.  We
also knew what the process was going to be, and that there was going
to be a conflict resolution problem if the communities had different
views.  Failing to have raised this during the many months that the
CRISP proposal was on the table is and claiming now that this was
something nobody'd really given proper thought to is, IMO,
a pretty dangerous line to take.  

> It's sort of like someone identifying a problem in an Internet Draft
> in IETF last call and the working group saying "sorry, you should've
> said something during the working group session a year ago."

No, it's not, because the IETF almost never has a deadline imposed by
US electoral politics.

> This seems to be an interesting interpretation of "stitch together".  An
> alternative interpretation would be that the ICG would actively work with
> the operational communities to modify the inconsistencies in order to
> reach a consensus opinion, not simply be passive and kick everything back
> to the operational communities to start over as you appear to be
> suggesting.

The ICG has been _crystal clear_ that they were going to kick any such
problem back to the communities.  They've said it over and over again.
Anyone who thinks they were kidding is just engaging in wishful
thinking.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com