[Iana-ipr] CWG Comments to IETF Trust IPR Agreements

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Aug 1 21:10:46 CEST 2016


On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:52:31PM +0000, Hofheimer, Joshua T. wrote:

>Originally the CWG considered structural neutrality, which would have had the IANA-IPR housed in an independent, neutral body.

Yes, and at the time we concluded that it wasn't going to be possible
to get that in time.  (Of course, that was quite a while ago, so we
have even less time now.)

>i.e., through agreements.  We understood that the occupational communities recognized this inherent, potential conflict and would endeavor to achieve as much “functional” neutrality as possible

Yes, but even at the time some of us were pointing out that while the
IETF Trust was entirely willing to undertake agreements -- and there
have been strong commitments to taking the advice of the CCG all along
-- ultimately the Trust would need to remain the final authority on
the IPR.  I don't know how I could have been any clearer about this
all along.

> However, serious consideration needs to be given to CWG's concerns and comments, which seek to achieve an acceptable level of functional neutrality.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that we're not taking those
comments seriously or that we didn't understand the concerns.  We are
and we do.  The problem is that we don't actually think we can do this
the way you're suggesting.

It's a serious problem, I agree.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list