Dear Trustees,
I agree with the message from Thomas Narten, cc:ed below. I expected, and request that you provide, a reply to John Klensin's appeal that is more directly responsive to the issues that John raised.
Also, I agree with John's concerns about discussion of this appeal being moved to the tlp-interest list. I'm not on the tlp-interest list, because I don't have the time or interest to follow a discussion of the legal details of our licensing policy. I don't believe that I should have to read that list to know how the Trust plans to respond to the issues than John raised.
Margaret On Sep 4, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate. I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is forthcoming. Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it. IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with clarity. Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf