Subject: RE: proposed charter - basic policy

From: Boot John-AJB024 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:52:22 -0500

Harold,
 sorry if this has been asked before, I am new to the list, but is a change
to the basic policy specifically out of the question ?

Regards
John Boot
Director Internet Standards Strategy
Corporate Standards
Motorola 

*	To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>> 
*	Subject: Re: proposed charter 
*	From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>> 
*	Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:59:02 +0200 
*	Cc: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
*	In-Reply-To: <[email-masked] <msg00013.html>> 
*	List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org> 
*	References: <[email-masked] <msg00013.html>> 
*	Sender: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

--On 14. juni 2002 13:46 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>> If there consensus of the working group for a different IPR policy
>> than the one described in RFC 2026, the working group will seek to
>> amend its charter to make it clear that it is changing the status quo.
>
> Not acceptable. A change to the basic policy is not a WG choice; it is
> so fundamental that it has to be an IETF choice. You can't casually throw
> this in as a potential side-effect of a WG chartered principally to
> document existing practice.

Brian,

I know we disagree on this point.

I see 3 possible scenarios:

- The IETF wishes to uphold existing practice, and the WG reflects that
- The IETF wishes to change existing practice for some reason, and the WG 
is able to reach consensus on a reasonable change to policy that reflects 
the desires of the IETF
- The IETF wishes to uphold existing practice, but the WG reaches consensus 
on an approach that does not reflect the desires of the IETF

The last one is worrisome. I *think* that in such a case, the documents 
would fail to rech consensus in the WG. But it would be a rough ride, and I 
woudl certainly try to avoid such a scenario.

Denying the possibility of the second smacks far too much of "the IESG does 
not wish to empower the membership to have a say in the rules at this time" 
for me.

Note also that the charter proposed currently does *not* allow a policy 
change - any policy change would require a recharter.
And a recharter is *always* possible, so mentioning it just makes it a 
little bit more explicit than usual.

                                 Harald

John Boot
Director Internet Standards Strategy
Corporate Standards
Motorola 

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:20:56 -0400

--On 18. juni 2002 12:52 -0500 Boot John-AJB024 <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> Harold,
>  sorry if this has been asked before, I am new to the list, but is a
> change to the basic policy specifically out of the question ?
>

We've been back and forth a bit on this one when drafting the draft for the 
charter too.

We *think* that under the "don't change what works" principle, there needs 
to be more justification for a big change than for a small change; if you 
see a need for a big change, you need to make a convincing case for it.
The charter language so far is deliberately wishy-washy; the group CAN talk 
about whether or not there is a need for dramatic change (as if we could 
prevent it!), but if that's the group's consensus, it needs to make the 
case for that change rather explicitly, and request a recharter before 
diving down that path.

Ultimately, the consensus of the IETF has to govern IETF policy. And we 
know that there are people who have a strongly held opinion that our 
current policy is a good one.

So rather than debating whether or not the question is out of the question 
or not, I'd like you to present your argument why you think the charter 
*should* allow changes to the basic policy, if that's what you think.

The charter proposal is just that - a proposal.

                       Harald