Subject: Re: proposed charter

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:29:26 -0400

Let me try to focus the discussion:  is the proposed charter 
acceptable?  As Harald and I have noted, it really boils down to three 
points:

	1) The current language in 2026 is confusing.  Even without a 
	policy change, we need to update it.

	2) We need to decide if we're going to keep the current policy.

	3) If we do want to change it, we'll go back to the IESG and say
	that.  That clause is in there because a policy change would 
	require much broader community input than a simple clarification
	does.  IESG policy favors well-focused working groups with a
	clear set of deliverables (in all cases, not just this); a
	charter for an IPR WG would have to say whether or not it was
	intended to change policy, because that would affect the
	schedule, if nothing else.

If we can generally agree that this is a reasonable plan, I'll try to 
move the charter forward.  If folks agree with the plan but not the 
wording, "send text".  

We'll revisit the design team question after the charter is settled.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:20:03 +0200

I don't agree with 1). I would say

1) The current language in 2026 is legally sound but not automatically
clear to non-lawyers. We need to write explanatory text.

And I don't want to see a charter that implies the WG may "decide" or "want" a
change of policy. That really would need an IETF-wide debate and consensus,
folowed by a WG to hack out the details. So I'm dead against 2) and 3). They
are quite orthogonal to any version of 1).

    Brian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:34:46 -0400

> We'll revisit the design team question after the charter is settled.

The third deliverable in the previous draft charter was ...

>         An Informational document, which describes useful rules of
>         thumb for working group chairs and working group members
>         when working on IPR issues, as well as describing specific
>         cases of IPR issues that have been successfully worked out
>         in the IETF process, and providing references to specific
>         examples of licensing statements and copyright provisions
>         that have proved useful or worrisome.  In other words, we
>         plan to document the running code of our process.

and that's the point.  This should be the first priority.  2026 talks
about how IPR is handled for WG documents, once the decision to include
"encumbered" ideas has been made, and is okay as far as it goes.  It
says very little about what should be done before that point, when the
decision is being made whether to use "encumbered" ideas or not.  Right
now WG behavior varies tremendously with regard to IPR, and the only
Taoist principle we have is that IPR is terrible, that it goes against
our lovely model of everyone cooperating communally for the good of the
planet, and it should be considered anathema.  I'm a 60s brat and this
idea is close to my heart (the shining city on the hill and all that)
but in reality, we're rapidly moving to a situation where everything is
"encumbered" with IPR.  We need to give all IETF participants a new
cultural framework for dealing with this situation.  A working group
should be comfortable even if all the ideas it will be considering are
patented.  That should be the goal of this particular effort.

So, in fact, 2026 is fine as far as it goes.  The goal should be to give
WGs a framework for working in a world where everything is "encumbered".
I think whether to extend 2026, or produce some different document,
should be a later decision, and the above deliverable should be the
primary one, perhaps the only one.  Let's start with it and see what
follows.  If, when we're done, you still think the right thing to do is
to incorporate the results into 2026, then we can just send the editors
off to do that.

...Scott

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:34:46 -0400

...Scott

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:35:22 -0400

> A working group

I strongly disagree.  why should a WG be comfortable with wasting 
its time and promoting one company's IPR?

if the goals of IETF and IETF WGs are to promote standardization 
and interoperabliity and to increase the functionality that
people derive from the Internet, then patents should make any WG
extremely uncomfortable.  they really are anathama to IETF's goals.

the goal of this effort should be to identify what can be done
to further discourage use of patented tecnology in the Internet.

Keith

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:57:17 -0400

> its time and promoting one company's IPR?

Every for-profit company involved in the IETF has patents or wishes it
did.  The Internet has run on patented technology since day 0.  So when
you say "promoting one company's IPR" I suspect you're just using
rhetorical exaggeration.

> extremely uncomfortable.  they really are anathama to IETF's goals.

What would be anathema to the IETF's goals would be not to have any
doctrine at all for dealing with the reality of current technology.  By
prohibiting the IETF from treating with patented technology you kill the
IETF.  Death by irrelevancy.

> to further discourage use of patented tecnology in the Internet.

Well, you could outlaw patent suits, or make patents only valid for 18
months.  In addition, you could decide that IP should not be allowed to
run over Ethernet.  

Or, you could do some engineering -- figure out how to do what you want
given the materials you have to work with and the real situation, and
provide guidelines to working groups and participating companies.  Of
course unencumbered technology is preferred, but so is a really good
Internet.  The purpose of most patents is defensive.  You use patented
technologies every day, and for the most part you appreciate it.

..Scott

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:12:45 -0400

> you say "promoting one company's IPR" I suspect you're just using

no.  why should a group of people with widely varying interests
collaborate to promote use of a single patent holder's 
(or a small number of such holders') IPR?  surely this isn't why 
the WG was formed.  the fact that a small number of parties may
control use of the technology produced by a WG often makes it far 
more difficult to choose a technology for a standard (because 
the stakes are higher) and often makes it more difficult to 
deploy that technology (because those who control the technology
increase the cost, prevent competitors from implementing it,
or impose arbitrary restrictions on its use)

> IETF.  Death by irrelevancy.

I might even agree with you there.  but note that 'prohibiting the IETF
from treating with patented technology' doesn't even resemble what I proposed.

> months.  In addition, you could decide that IP should not be allowed to

now who is using rhetorical exaggeration?
 
> technologies every day, and for the most part you appreciate it.

I should probably have said "encumbered technology" rather than "patented
technology" - I accept that defensive patents are probably necessary 
given the current legal environment.  at the same time, I think we might
do well to codify that a WG has an obligation to make its work implementable
and usable by everyone as much as is feasable - and to the extent that patents 
prevent that, the WG has an obligation to look for alternatives.

Keith

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:02:36 -0400

> clear to non-lawyers. We need to write explanatory text.

FWIW, it seems unclear to lawyers too.

             Harald

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:58:48 +0300 (EEST)

> its time and promoting one company's IPR?

My thoughts exactly.

> to further discourage use of patented tecnology in the Internet.

Exactly.

(The difference of opinion here is probably caused by "Internet
idealists/academic users/free software developers" versus "Companies that
need to make money on the Internet", with more or less honest ways.

Patents are bad, but patents with non-RF licensing are even worse.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:39:55 -0400

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 01:58:48PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> idealists/academic users/free software developers" versus "Companies
> that need to make money on the Internet", with more or less honest
> ways.

In my case, it's "Internet idealists who have been burned by companies
making money on the Internet, and thus strongly support defensive
patents".

> Patents are bad, but patents with non-RF licensing are even worse.

Agreed, but patents are still reality.  As you've pointed out, it's not
an all-or-nothing question.  Item 3 in the proposed charter seems to
include that.

..Scott

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:07:38 -0700

> making money on the Internet, and thus strongly support defensive

actually, the real threat seems to be large lawyer-heavy companies
locking smaller companies out of the marketplace.  and, in our culture,
it is the small companies which are the source of much innovation.

not to ignore the hit on open source, academics, ...

randy