On 06/08/2013 03:11, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter
>
> > Thanks for the careful explanations.
>
> I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order.
>
> > Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or
> > dispose of assets
>
> From: Brian E Carpenter
> Thanks for the careful explanations.
I'll second that; it does seem that some tweaking may be in order.
> Clearly the Trust shouldn't have blanket permission to abandon or
> dispose of assets
When the time comes to draft actual wording, I would sugge
On Aug 5, 2013, at 7:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> As
> far as CC is concerned, I'm not persuaded that it meets out need
> but not persuaded that it would cause great harm for
> non-standards documents either.
At the risk of opening up the paint cabinet inside the bike shed: what do you
think
--On Saturday, August 03, 2013 06:50 -0500 Jorge Contreras
wrote:
> Please see below for some specific responses to Brian's
> concerns.
>...
Jorge,
Given this explanation, I'm ok with seeing a specific proposal.
I think that proposal should reflect a minimum change model. As
far as CC is con
Jorge,
Thanks for the careful explanations. My only quibble is whether the phrase
"other than rights in IETF standards-related documents (such as RFCs,
Internet Drafts and the like)" actually excludes the Tao, which is not
a standards document, but is very relevant to the standards process
and was
Hi Chris,
> >> Issue #1
> >> We have recently been asked permission to
> >> republish the TAO with a creative commons
> >> license, but unfortunately the current trust
> >> agreement does not give the trustees the
> >> rights to do this
> >
> > It doesn't? You have the right to license "existing a
Please see below for some specific responses to Brian's concerns.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Chris Griffiths wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> > Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
> >
> > I hav
On Aug 2, 2013, at 4:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> FWIW, I share Brian's concern and reasoning about these
> questions (and his allergy). I might have a lower threshold of
> necessity as a requirement for changing the agreement, but I'm
> not convinced -- from either the slide or what I could
On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
Hi Brian,
> Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
>
> I have an allergy to modifying the Trust Agreement unless there's an
> overwhelming reason to do so. It was a very hard-won piece of text.
I recognize that this was a ver
Hi Chris,
At 23:56 02-08-2013, Chris Griffiths wrote:
I just replied to Brian's email, and also requested that Jorge
Contreras (CC'd) weigh in with his legal review on this
matter. Please let me know if you need any further details.
I'll wait for Jorge Contreras's comments.
While I cannot sp
On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:58 PM, SM wrote:
Hello SM,
> Hi Chris,
> At 13:59 01-08-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Re the Trust's plenary slides (I was not in Berlin):
>>
>> I have an allergy to modifying the Trust Agreement unless there's an
>> overwhelming reason to do so. It was a very hard-won
11 matches
Mail list logo
