--On Saturday, 26 November, 2005 22:16 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:28:50AM -0500,
> John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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 provisions simply be removed is, in essence, a request
>> that the whole plan be thrown away and alternatives
> Am I right in thinking, from your message, that there is no
> alternative and, since CNRI has its hands solidly locked over
> IETF intellectual property, the current Trust proposal,
> however lame it is (I am myself very concerned with Schedule
> A, b) and c), which allow CNRI to keep more or less what they
> want), is better than nothing?
You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment :-)
> (I believe it is what you said, expressed more shortly.)
Actually, it makes an inference, maybe two, that I carefully
didn't make or say. To repeat what I did say, in slightly
* There are apparently some alternatives to the Trust
plan. None of them is without some problems.
* I'm told that around nine months ago, the IAOC weighed
at least some of the other options (maybe more of them)
as well as the Trust option and concluded that the Trust
was the best (or least bad) alternative.
* 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.
Beyond that, if you need more information about alternatives and
choices to make a decision about whether you are supportive of
this, you need to ask the IAOC members. I don't have much more
information and details about their decisions should come from
them -- I'm pretty much just an onlooker. In particular, I
don't know whether, if they had anticipated nine or more months
of negotiations leading to this type of agreement when they
decided to go forward with the Trust option, they would have
made that choice. I also don't know whether that is important
except insofar as I've noticed that having agreements (or
protocol designs) drag out until general exhaustion and
frustration sets in rarely produces good results. But, again, I
don't know whether that principle applies here or not.
Ietf mailing list