Subject: [idn] wg milestones update

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:32:10 -0400

Hi,
	the milestones in the current charter are overdue. As said during 
minneapolis, the chairs had the task to propose new milestones to the 
wg.  Here is our proposal.

Marc & James

May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC
May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol
May 15 Second version of Comparison I-D
Jun 01 Last Call on Comparison I-D
Jul 01 Final revision of IDN protocol I-D(s)
Aug 08 London IETF: final discussion on IDN protocol I-D(s)
Aug 15 Last Call on IDN Protocol I-D(s)
Sep 01 Submit Comparison I-D to IESG for Informational RFC
Sep 01 Submit Protocol I-D(s) to IESG for standard track RFC

---

From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:44:19 -0700

Marc - what is the position on dealing with the Walid patent in this process? 

thanks,

Bill

---

From: "Edmon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:59:19 -0400

I had the impression that a revised version of the requirements doucment
will be posted for final review based on the discussion at the IETF meeting
last time and the mailing list discussion prior to that.  I dont think we
have seen the updated version yet.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:15:52 -0400

>last time and the mailing list discussion prior to that.  I dont think we

Zita sent the added text a while ago and seems to receive no complaints. So 
we feel now that the req documents has a rough concensus.

>have seen the updated version yet.

should be there real soon now...

Marc.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:11:49 -0400

On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about the 
6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. acknowledged the 
reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. responded on April 13th 
2001 with a series of questions that were answered by one of the IDNA 
authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to Walid inc. that this IDNA author's 
email was answering the essence of the Walid inc. questions. Since then, we 
haven't received any new message or statement from Walid inc.

Marc & James.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 3:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: walid idn request

Hi,
	from http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/WALID-IDN, you are designated as the
person responsible for IP issues at Walid. At the IETF idn wg meeting held
monday march 20th 2001 in Minneapolis, the wg expressed concerns about the
fact that the current orientation of the working group which is documented
in the a few documents (draft-ietf-idn-idna-01.txt,
draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-03.txt, and others) could be covered by the US
patent 6,182,148 owned by Walid.  The wg strongly feels that the current IP
statement sent to the IETF is not enough clear to assess the fair
availability of the use of the patent if the wg documents go forward in the
standard track.  The wg feels that we cannot promote the current documents
to the RFC level without a clearer and more open IP statement from Walid.
	As you know, time is the essence.  We do feel an urgent need to have
another statement from Walid that it either:
- keeps with the current IP statement, which is unsatisfactory for the
working group
- have a new IP statement that the working group will find acceptable to
promote the documents to the RFC level.

	You should understand that this request is coming from the IETF idn
working group through our position of IETF idn wg co-chair, and not as
individuals or as our companies representatives.

	Could you please have an expressed attention to this message? Could we
expect some news from Walid in the coming few weeks?

Regards,

Marc Blanchet, co-chair of IETF idn wg
James Seng, co-chair of IETF idn wg.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:47:17 -0400

Marc,

Where is the response by Walid to your mail of 032001?
Where is the responsive query by Walid of 041301?
Where is the undated responsive answers by an IDNA Author?
Where is the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG Co-Chair?

Eric

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:04:29 -0400

At/À 10:47 2001-04-26 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine you 
>Where is the undated responsive answers by an IDNA Author?

sorry, I wrote same day.

>Where is the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG Co-Chair?

I won't forward emails if I don't have the permission from the authors of 
the emails. If those email authors want to forward to the mailing list the 
emails they sent, then this is fine for me.  As a result, I only forward 
the first email since this is the one James and I wrote!

Marc.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:19:59 -0700

This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing:

In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make 
changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe in 
the future.  (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate question.)  This 
process of re-design is done in consultation with a patent litigation attorney.

I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants in 
the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of a 
patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working group 
specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted?

This does not have to be a formal working group activity.  Privately, some 
companies could  get together, contribute the necessary funds to the 
re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification that they then 
submit to the working group.

d/

At 07:11 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about 
>the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. acknowledged 
>the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. responded on April 
>13th 2001 with a series of questions that were answered by one of the IDNA 
>authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to Walid inc. that this IDNA 
>author's email was answering the essence of the Walid inc. questions. 
>Since then, we haven't received any new message or statement from Walid inc.

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:41 -0400

Marc,

Please clarify who authored which communication.

Please also clarify if Walid's communication(s) of 032001 and/or 041301
were personal communication(s).

Please also clarify if the responsive answers by an IDNA Auther to Walid
were personal communication(s).

Please also clarify if the undated acknowledgement and reference by a WG
Co-Chair was authored by James Seng, the only co-chair of this WG other
than yourself?
 
Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:29 -0400

At/À 09:19 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous écriviez:
>patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working 
>group specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted?
>
>This does not have to be a formal working group activity.

this cannot be.

Marc.

>  Privately, some companies could  get together, contribute the necessary 
> funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification 
> that they then submit to the working group.
>
>d/
>
>
>>the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. 
>>acknowledged the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. 
>>responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions that were 
>>answered by one of the IDNA authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to 
>>Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence of the 
>>Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new message or 
>>statement from Walid inc.
>
>----------

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:07:30 -0700

Marc,

Your comment was so cryptic, I do not know what it means.  Please clarify.

If you are saying that an effort like this cannot be, why?

If you are saying that an effort like this cannot take place within an IETF 
working group, I guess I am also curious why not.  (Though the issue is 
secondary, since I believe the process would be easier and more efficient 
to handle outside the working group.

If you are saying that an effort like this cannot get around the patent, 
I'll simply note that that is a question that is as much a matter of law as 
engineering.  It is sometimes fascinating to see what an attorney will 
recommend...

Given the importance of this work, it seems entirely worthwhile to be 
aggressive in seeking a solution that is not encumbered with proprietary 
intellectual property.

d/

At 09:33 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe 
>>in the future.  (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate 
>>question.)  This process of re-design is done in consultation with a 
>>patent litigation attorney.
>>
>>I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants 
>>in the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of 
>>a patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:19:35 -0400

> >This does not have to be a formal working group activity.

Please explain your reasoning. I'm curious as to the distinction
between an activity engaged in by two or three IETF participants,
two of whom happen to co-chair a Working Group, and an I-D author,
and a 3rd-party IPR claimant, and the process Dave described, in
which some number of IETF participants engage in an activity with
a 3rd-party IPR claimant.

The process docuent cite(s) depricating the first, and promoting
the second, or distinguishing between the first and second, will
be interesting reading.

Eric

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:50:51 -0400

>Your comment was so cryptic, I do not know what it means.  Please clarify.

sorry. just saying that doing patent litigation _cannot_ be a _formal_ 
working group activity. could be done by a group of people/companies/... 
but not as a wg item or activity.  I was just emphazing your "does not have 
to be" to a "cannot be".

More clear?

Marc.

>If you are saying that an effort like this cannot take place within an 
>IETF working group, I guess I am also curious why not.  (Though the issue 
>is secondary, since I believe the process would be easier and more 
>efficient to handle outside the working group.
>
>I'll simply note that that is a question that is as much a matter of law 
>as engineering.  It is sometimes fascinating to see what an attorney will 
>recommend...
>
>>>  Privately, some companies could  get together, contribute the 
>>> necessary funds to the re-design group effort, and produce a revised 
>>> specification that they then submit to the working group.
>>
>>----------

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:10:57 -0400

Marc,

I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering
activity.

You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering
activity.

If you substitute my reading for your own, please re-evaluate your
"cannot be" comment. Both Dave and I are curious why the activity he
proposed (my reading, not yours) cannot be carried out by an IETF WG,
and I agree with his aside that such work is better carried out by a
focused group with the ability to obtain expert IPR guidence.

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:56:36 -0700

At 10:11 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. 
>about the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. 
>Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence 
>of the Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new 
>message or statement from Walid inc.

Greetings, all. This message contains the messages that were 
previously sent off of the mailing list. I am sending these messages 
to the IDN WG list with the verbal permission from both Patrik 
Fältström and Doug Hawkins.

Message 1 was sent by Patrik and I to the folks at WALID. It was a 
follow-up to personal discussions Patrik and I had with WALID folks 
at the Minneapolis IETF meeting. I wrote this message with Patrik's 
help and it reflected both our views.

Message 2 was sent by Doug Hawkins, the Director of WALID. This is 
the message Marc referred to when he said "Walid inc. responded on 
April 13th 2001 with a series of questions"

Message 3 was sent by Patrik. This is the message that Marc referred 
to when he said "that were answered by one of the IDNA authors". 
Although I didn't see that message when Patrik sent it (he knew I was 
on vacation and had no email access), I agreed with Patrik's 
statements after I read it.

--Paul Hoffman

=================================
Message 1
=================================

To: Doug Hawkins <[email-masked]>
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Subject: WALID's patent and the IETF process
Cc: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>, "Brian W. Spolarich" 
<[email-masked]>, Mark Welter <[email-masked]>, Marc Blanchet 
<[email-masked]>, James Seng <[email-masked]>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Greetings. This message comes in response to a discussions we had 
with the technical folks from WALID during the IETF meeting last 
week. We write this as long-time participants in the IETF; further, 
Patrik writes it as a member of the IESG who is quite aware of how 
the IESG deals with intellectual property issues in IETF standards.

During our discussions, it became clear that WALID has probably 
misunderstood the history of the IETF with respect to intellectual 
property rights (IPR) and therefore probably has too little 
information to make a good decision on how to deal with its rights in 
its US patent 6182148. We cannot tell WALID what to do, but we can 
certainly explain what the IETF has done historically, and explain 
what has been said about WALID and its patent in the weeks since it 
was revealed to us by one of WALID's competitors.

The IETF has always strongly favored completely unencumbered 
technology over any technology for which there are even mild 
licensing restrictions. Probably the most obvious example of this is 
the patent on the RSA algorithm. In every case, the IETF refused to 
make the RSA algorithm mandatory to implement, even when the 
competing algorithms such as DSA were difficult to implement for a 
particular protocol. In all security protocols standardized before 
the RSA patent expired, the IETF mandated some flavor of DSA.

Although such a policy may not seem "fair" to IPR owners, it has 
worked extremely well over the past 15 years. This is shown both by 
the growth of the Internet and by the near-complete withering of 
networks designed by organizations with weaker stances on IPR. Many 
large and small companies have contributed their IPR to the IETF 
standardization effort so that the best protocols can be standardized.

The WALID patent does not exist in a vacuum. The IDN Working Group 
has options that would not infringe on the WALID patent. The fact 
that all of these options are worse than the one currently favored 
does not affect the IETF's views on the patent. As long as there is 
any option that is unencumbered, a protocol that would infringe on 
the WALID patent will probably not be considered unless WALID signs 
an IPR statement giving full, free, and unencumbered access to the 
technology. This would involve a significant change to the WALID IPR 
statement on file with the IETF Secretariat.

For a Working Group in the IETF to move forward with a protocol 
involves getting the consensus of the Working Group, and any protocol 
that would involve Working Group members paying money (or even having 
to register with one of their competitors) is very unlikely to get 
the needed consensus. Nothing in the IETF process prohibits a Working 
Group from getting consensus around moving a solution with IPR 
statement like the current one from WALID forward; it is simply very 
unlikely if there are other options that don't have IPR issues.

When evaluating whether to change the WALID IPR statement, please be 
sure to look at the negative aspects of not changing it, or not 
changing it sufficiently. If WALID does not make the IPR fully and 
freely available, there is little chance that the IETF will chose a 
technology that infringes on the patent, and will instead choose a 
different technology. This leaves WALID with a pretty much useless 
patent, since the IDN community will go with the IETF standard. Worse 
for WALID, because the other technologies are less desirable than the 
one that uses the WALID patent, there will be lots of loud complaints 
about WALID for quite some time. Previous patent issues in the IETF 
usually have been identified as "the RSA mess" or "the Entrust mess"; 
having the problems in a non-ACE IDN solution being called "the WALID 
mess" will certainly not do WALID any good, particularly if the 
patent becomes useless. Articles about "the WALID mess" in the 
computer trade press and the business press might have a very 
negative financial effect on the company.

The solution to this problem is simple: create a good IPR statement 
for the patent. For example, Stanford's license for SRP 
authentication is quite simple, and is one of the main reasons this 
standard was allowed to move forward (see 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/WU-SRP>). This could be used as a 
template for a WALID statement. Note that it is not clear how much 
WALID would have to give up to make the IETF happy; that won't be 
known until any standard has gone through the IESG. A license that is 
enough for the IDN Working Group might not be enough for the IESG, or 
vice versa. Thus, in order to assure that the Working Group uses the 
WALID patent (and therefore prevents this from becoming "the WALID 
mess"), WALID must be as generous as possible with the patent.

The upside of this will certainly be good will to WALID. Although 
everyone is now very angry with WALID, it is likely that it will 
dissipate almost immediately after the problem is resolved. This 
quick turnaround has happened consistently with other companies who 
have issued good IPR licenses to the IETF. At that point, WALID will 
certainly be remembered as a significant name in the IDN space, and 
earlier bad feelings will be forgotten.

If there is anything either of us can do to help you further with 
your decision, please let us know.

Paul E. Hoffman
Patrik Fältström

=================================
Message 2
=================================

From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: walid idn request
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:36:36 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal

Gentlemen:
I am writing in response to Marc Blanchet’s and James Seng’s e-mail of March
20, 2001, and Paul Hoffman’s and Patrik Faltstrom’s e-mail of March 25,
2001, concerning WALID’s U.S. patent number 6,182,148.  Since receiving
these e-mail messages, we have been reviewing our Intellectual Property
Rights notice, trying to address the concerns expressed in those e-mails and
seeking to balance the rights of all Internet users and WALID, Inc.  To that
end, we offer the following questions and ask that you (the participants who
have communicated directly with us) respond in a manner that will foster a
resolution to this matter.

·	In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent 
applications, is
the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALID’s technology are not
or will not be encumbered by patents?  Indeed, various of our competitors
who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs
(http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent applications
now made publicly available
(http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe
that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method
described in the WALID patent.  Will the IETF take all IPR rights into
account in considering all of the possible recommendations?
·	As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other
alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when compared
to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these alternative
approaches meet the goal of “technical excellence” set out in RFC2026
section 1.2? Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all Internet users
will be achieved by adoption of the best technical solution? Paul Hoffman
and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we agree that adoption of an
alternative approach will delay implementation of a standard by months at
the least and will hurt Internet users. How would the adoption of a non
ACE-based solution serve the interests of the Internet community?
·	RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with respect to intellectual
property issues is “to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others;” While we
understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom state, the IETF “has
always strongly favored completely unencumbered technology over any
technology for which there are even mild licensing restrictions,” would
adherence to that principle in this instance be in the best interests of the
Internet community, particularly in light of our agreement regarding the
technical inferiority of the alternative methods? Furthermore, WALID’s IPR
notice is consistent with many IPR notices that have been submitted to the
IETF, including IPR notices that (we understand) include “mild licensing
restrictions” and still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is
WALID’s situation any different? Particularly in that WALID is already
making its own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end
users on its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisign’s website
http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client?

We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that
together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and
industry.

Sincerely,
J. Douglas Hawkins
WALID, Inc.

=================================
Message 3
=================================

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:45:48 +0200
From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
To: "J. Douglas Hawkins" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
         [email-masked]
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: RE: walid idn request
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0a4 (Mac OS X)

--On 01-04-13 13.36 -0400 "J. Douglas Hawkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  ·	In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent 
>applications, is
>  the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALID?s technology are
>  not or will not be encumbered by patents?

No. Definitly not. And, as you see in 2026, only individuals in the wg can
make up their mind what they think. The wg itself, and IETF procedures,
makes it possible to accept solutions which require licensing. The
procedures say that not only is interoperability tests with multiple
implementations needed, but also multiple licenses.

But, individuals in a wg can make up their mind thinking that a proposed
solution for success (note that Full Standard Status require "wide
deployment, and that the solution is generally a good thing") need a
specific kind of licensing.

In this specific case, individuals have contacted you at Walid saying that
we belive that the IPR statement Walid has posted is too strong for a
solution regarding IDN. My personal take is that _any_ solution for IDN
must have IPR statements from companies which might have impact on the
solution which makes it possible for _any_ person or company to write
software and publish it (as open source, as a commercial product, or part
of such a solution) without paying anyone anything, and without even
requiring an explicit license.

So far, I have read the statements from some of the companies, and yes, I
am worried about many of them.

At this point in time, Walid is the one which have a patent which at least
to me as amateur on patent issues have some claims which have impact on the
current solution which this wg is looking at at the moment.

I have not said that I belive that other solutions which might be possible
will not rise the same kind of concerns from me.

>  Indeed, various of our
>  competitors who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs
>  (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent
>  applications now made publicly available
>  (http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe
>  that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method
>  described in the WALID patent.  Will the IETF take all IPR rights into
>  account in considering all of the possible recommendations?

Not IETF. But individuals. You have to differ between those two things.
IETF (and IESG for that matters) do _not_ take any position. Whether some
IPR statements are ok or not is a question which individuals in the wg
should make up their mind about while reaching consensus around a solution.

>  ·	As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other
>  alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when
>  compared to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these
>  alternative approaches meet the goal of ?technical excellence? set out in
>  RFC2026 section 1.2?

At the same time we have to come up with solutions which will be widely
deployed.

>  Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all
>  Internet users will be achieved by adoption of the best technical
>  solution?

Not completely correct. It must also be implementable and usable. Having a
solution which is not usable is to no use for the Internet community
regardless of what technical excellence the proposal is.

And, take into account the question we also have in this wg in parallel
which is the question which John Klensin have been rising all along, and
that is whether an IDN solution is really going to work if it is based on a
DNS solution which requires exact matches compared with a dictionary
solution which can handle approximate matching and more input to the query
than just the query string itself.

So, if not going with an ACE solution, I might personally as individual
very easy change to be standing on the side of John Klensin asking for the
IDN wg to compare the IDNA and other solutions with the requirements
document and simply declare that that is not possible with DNS, close the
wg, go home, and create the directory layer which is really needed
(regardless).

>  Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we
>  agree that adoption of an alternative approach will delay implementation
>  of a standard by months at the least and will hurt Internet users. How
>  would the adoption of a non ACE-based solution serve the interests of the
>  Internet community?

Any solution which is possible to implement might be better than one which
is not possible to implement for various reasons, and licensing being one
of them.

>  ·	RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with
>  respect to intellectual property issues is ?to benefit the Internet
>  community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights
>  of others;? While we understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik
>  Faltstrom state, the IETF ?has always strongly favored completely
>  unencumbered technology over any technology for which there are even mild
>  licensing restrictions,? would adherence to that principle in this
>  instance be in the best interests of the Internet community, particularly
>  in light of our agreement regarding the technical inferiority of the
>  alternative methods? Furthermore, WALID?s IPR notice is consistent with
>  many IPR notices that have been submitted to the IETF, including IPR
>  notices that (we understand) include ?mild licensing restrictions? and
>  still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is WALID?s
>  situation any different?

Note what I wrote above regarding the view of individuals in the IDN wg,
and what the IETF procedures are.

My view is that any solution for IDN which have to be implemented in any
software which uses DNS, which is every software using the Internet, have
to be surrounded with IPR statements which leaves it to anyone to implement
the RFC exactly as stated in the RFC (i.e. I am not asking someone to give
away IPR rights to a patent, only enough so an RFC can be implemented).

>  Particularly in that WALID is already making its
>  own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end users on
>  its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisign?s website
>  http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client?

Software has nothing to do with implementation of an RFC.

If Walid gives away the client code to end users, and have the view that
people whould be able to implement the IDNA solution which some claims in
the Walid patent covers, why not change the IPR statement to be something
like:

"In the case that the IDN wg produces RFC's which have parts which are
covered by claims in the Walid patents, we hereby give the rights to anyone
to implement those RFC without requirements for any extra licenses or fees.
We don't give the rights to implement Walid patent claims in any other
solutions than what is described in the RFC's."

My take is that Walid by doing something like this will (a) show that they
play the game in the IETF as a very good citizen (b) will (is already)
well-known for the ACE solutions and software.

I.e. if you (as I belive you think) you have a good implementation and know
what you are doing, don't you think you still will have at least as much
work to do if you let people implement the RFC without any extra license as
if you require one? What do you think people will think about Walid if they
implement the RFC, and you start chasing people? Will you hunt Linus
Torvald if the IDNA solution is included in Linux? If you do, what do you
think "Network World" will write about Walid in that case? If you don't
chase people down (including Linus), what is your patent worth?

This is a scenario which I as individual do not want.

>  We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that
>  together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and
>  industry.

    paf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:32:28 -0700

At 10:50 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>but not as a wg item or activity.  I was just emphazing your "does not 
>have to be" to a "cannot be".

ahh.  MY turn to apologize.

I am not suggesting we enter into litigation.  Rather I am suggesting that 
a patent litigation attorney be used to advise on ways to design around the 
patent...

Anyhow, to repeat, I think it would be far better to pursue this as a 
private group.

d/

----------

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:49:51 -0400

At/À 14:10 2001-04-26 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine you 
>I understood Dave's proposal to be expert-guided design, an engineering

yeap.

>You appear to have understood Dave's proposal to be a non-engineering

no. I did understand well.

>proposed (my reading, not yours) cannot be carried out by an IETF WG,

- I was not commenting on the value of the activity. i.e. it may be good or 
not to do it.
- I was just saying that this activity, based on my limited knowledge of 
ietf, cannot be a working group formal activity per se. this is it. nothing 
else. Since the ietf, by itself, does not conduct "patent activities". (one 
can argue differently obviously... ;-)))
- So in other words, you are free to do it, but not with an official wg 
hat, but as individuals.

clearer?  (sorry for the confusion: email is a non perfect medium to 
communicate, and with my short writing style and my bad english, added this 
"sensitive" subject. makes things not clear then confusion arises... sorry 
again).

>focused group with the ability to obtain expert IPR guidence.

yes.

Marc.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:55:02 -0400

At/À 11:32 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous écriviez:
>a patent litigation attorney be used to advise on ways to design around 
>the patent...
>

strong agreement.

Marc.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:08:10 -0400

Marc,

> no. I did understand well.

and

> can argue differently obviously... ;-)))

Litigation is carried out by litigators.

Patent work is carried out by patent attornies.

Engineering is carried out by engineers.

No process document prevents a working group from seeking guidance by any
expert, in fact, by our very participant nature, a patent attorney may be
a working group participant.

> - I was not commenting on the value of the activity. i.e. it may be good or 

Utility is variably determined. Necessity is process document determined.

> - So in other words, you are free to do it, but not with an official wg 

As it was with the co-chairs and the I-D co-author, in their personal
capacities, in the context originally described in this thread.

I'm glad to see Paul's note. It is overdue, but necessary.

Eric

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:14:02 +0800

If we have a patent lawyer on the WG (ie, mailing list) and who is
willing to comments and give feedback to the design, the author(s) of
various drafts would definately be interested in their comments.

The problem is AFAIS, we do not have one. If you know of any patent
lawyer(s) who is willing to contribute their time and effort to the WG,
please invite them to the WG.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news.

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:09:02 +0800

Eric,

While I do not understand the relevant of this wrt to the WG process, I
am going to answer it just-for-the-hack-of-it.

> Please clarify who authored which communication.

All communication with Walid are authored depending who wrote it. But
co-chairs communications are reviewed between the co-chairs.

> Please also clarify if Walid's communication(s) of 032001 and/or
> 041301 were personal communication(s).

Please define "personal" communication.

If you mean if it is private, then the answer is "yes" altho Walid has
publish some of them on their website.

If you mean if it is individual email, then some are written as WG
co-chairs, some are individual members. Email as clearly labeled as
such.

> Please also clarify if the responsive answers by an IDNA Auther to
> Walid were personal communication(s).

This question should be answered by Walid since the WG chairs do not
know any private communication between IDA Author and Walid.

> Please also clarify if the undated acknowledgement and reference by
> a WG Co-Chair was authored by James Seng, the only co-chair of this
> WG other than yourself?

Yes. It is a one line email written by me: "Actually I think Patrick has
send an email back wrt to this query and we are waiting for your
response."

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:01:37 -0400

Marc,

> May 01 Submit Requirements I-D to IESG for Informational RFC

I don't think the [30] discussion will converge and resolve to consensus
in 24 hours.

I do wish -06 were available _before_ being submitted, to the I-D editor,
but especially to the IESG.

> May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol

There are 6,182,148 (Walid), and 5,410,306 (Ydisg).

I don't think the rfc2026, section 10 (IPR) discussions (note the plural)
are identical, or complete, and are unlikely to converge and resolve to
consensii in 24 hours.

Recommendations:

I suggest that we move the date on the requirements draft out a week.

I suggest that we task the ADs to summarize or have summarized the issues
for each of the Ydsig and Walid IPR claims, solicit "proposed courses of
action" for some reasonable period after the summaries are available, and
conduct a straw-poll on the suggested courses of action.

I haven't looked at Walid. I haven't looked at Ydisg. I haven't asked our
(NeuStar) in-house legal team to start to get an opinion from any patent
law firm. I'm sure that the courses of action possible are richer than a
{stop,avoid,overrun} repitoire, however, I'm also sure that we (the IETF)
have more experience specific to this general problem than is possessed in
this, or most any limited charter working group.

I don't know (yet) how to decide. The urgency isn't lost on me, I simply
lack clue. I do know that "haste makes waste", and I trust that everyone
in the haste camp has sufficient clue to avoid waste.

Eric