Subject: Re: Going too far: draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update-00 and draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:17:29 +0100

John,

> 
> For the record, I am personally opposed to our taking that step
> and claiming/ demanding, for the IETF, complete ownership of
> anything that is suggested for the standards track or published
> as a standards-track RFC (two different possible rules).  But I
> am even more opposed to incrementally granting more and more
> rights to the IETF (actually, presumably, IAOC and the Trust) to
> make reuse decisions that are not directly and obviously related
> to the IETF's standards process.
> 

As I understand it, draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update doesn't ask for
that; it asks for the right to pass on the right to make
derivative works. The use case for that is when the IETF wants to
hand a standard over to another SDO. Today, this requires the
other SDO to go to all the original contrbutors for permissions.

Are you opposed to that?

     Brian

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:11:09 -0500

--On Friday, 04 November, 2005 21:17 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
>> 
>> For the record, I am personally opposed to our taking that
>> step and claiming/ demanding, for the IETF, complete
>> ownership of anything that is suggested for the standards
>> track or published as a standards-track RFC (two different
>> possible rules).  But I am even more opposed to incrementally
>> granting more and more rights to the IETF (actually,
>> presumably, IAOC and the Trust) to make reuse decisions that
>> are not directly and obviously related to the IETF's
>> standards process.
>> 
> 

As long as the IESG -- and the IESG and not [merely] the IAOC or
the Trustees of some real or imaginary trust -- are willing to
assert, based on their perception of community consensus and in
their role as the managers of that process, that the handover
serves the (standards-development) purposes of the IETF, I am
certainly not opposed to it.  I think it is a basic requirement
if we are to collaborate actively with other groups, sometimes
accepting things from them and sometimes handing things over.  I
would assume that any handover to another SDO would meet that
"standards-development purposes of the IETF" criterion or we
would not be doing it.  Whether that much authority requires the
additional text in the cited I-D is another question and one
which I am not prepared, as a non-lawyer, to try to answer.

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 01:52:28 +0100

> which I am not prepared, as a non-lawyer, to try to answer.

I'm pretty sure that it does need the draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update
text, which was written with counsel's advice.

    Brian