Subject: Re: Proposed charter update

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:12:01 +0100

Simon,

There's no concrete progress, but I think that there's little chance
of the WG going out of business until this topic is resolved.

    Brian

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Is there any progress on this?
> 
> I believe we should make progress with a charter update to make it
> clear to others that we are working on the outbound copying conditions
> for IETF documents.
> 
> Since this WG appear to have no remaining tasks if this work is not
> adopted, the WG appear likely to be closed soon.  I want to find out
> whether I should start looking at raising support for a BOF on
> outbound copying conditions at the next IETF, or whether this issue
> will be address by this WG.
> 
> As a reminder, RFC 2026 granted several outbound copying rights that
> were reverted by RFC 3978.  I think this WG should at least correct
> that mistake, but when doing so, I believe it is useful to have a real
> discussion about what the IETF actually intended with RFC 2026.
> 
> The legal foundation of several free software projects that
> incorporate portions of RFCs depend on one interpretation of RFC 2026,
> one that is not disputed by the RFC 2026 author.  Clarifying which
> interpretation is correct is important.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> 
>>(AD hat on)
>>
>>Simon,
>>
>>The WG Chair and I certainly need to discuss the way forward
>>and a charter update may well be needed, although I'm not
>>yet convinced we are really talking about a change in the
>>IETF's *intended* policy.
>>
>>Also, although we had half the time needed in the session,
>>I think your trip was worthwhile. We got the issue on the
>>table and we know it can't be ducked.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>>Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>>>Saddened that there were no discussion on outbound rights principle
>>>last night -- the discussion was about inbound rights, for which there
>>>were apparently little or no disagreement at all, making the meeting
>>>seem like a waste of face-of-face time to me, since my presentation
>>>was intended as a starting point for an open mic session -- I'd like
>>>to propose one mechanism to make sure this WG address the outbound
>>>rights issue.
>>>The first step to make sure the WG address this issue is to update
>>>the
>>>charter.  It is not clear that the current charter cover this work.
>>>The current charter require the WG to update the charter when new
>>>issues are identified.  I believe my work is a continuation of the
>>>2026 policy, but there seem to be disagreement on that.  Updating the
>>>charter thus seem the right thing to do.  There certainly seem to be
>>>enough interest in working on this matter, and we have one draft on
>>>this matter already (mine).
>>>Read the current charter before considering my proposed text below,
>>>it
>>>is available from:
>>>   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html
>>>Charter update strawman:
>>>   While clarifying the existing practices, the issue of which
>>>rights
>>>   the IETF should be granted to third parties were identified.  The
>>>   WG charter is amended with the following task: to establish
>>>   consensus of which rights the IETF should grant to third parties,
>>>   and to update the license text.  One input to this process will be
>>>   draft-josefsson-ipr-rules-update, but different approaches will be
>>>   solicited.
>>>I welcome discussion on whether this is a reasonable way forward.
>>>Thanks,
>>>Simon
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ipr-wg mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>>
> 
> 

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:27:46 +0100

If so, updating the charter and the milestones to indicate that
conclusion seem prudent.

If somebody look at the charter, or read other reports (like the
latest IETF Journal), they will get the impression that the IPR WG is
shutting down and will not think of participating.

I believe it is important to make sure the community is involved in
this process, so the process issues with the IAOC and IPR Trust are
not repeated.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:12:41 -0800

I would like to formally suggest that the Chair and the IESG consider the
creation of an IP Director's Role who's scope will include:

    1)    Defining the IETF's IP Operations Policies with IPR-WG including
how IP is managed, brought in and used. This individual is the specific
person within the Secretariats Staff or the Chair's Staff that catalogs
and inventories the rights sets constraining the existing portfolio so that
it can be "normalized through the 'new release sign-off process'"

    2)    Managing the interfaces between the IETF and other SO's using its
IP including WIPO and other Global SO's - would be personally responsible
for working with WIPO and other SO's on their use of IETF documents and
content, and the licensing terms for that. Additionally this individual
will be responsible for the model in which other SDO publication's  and
their content can be referenced within IETF without copyright or derivative
use issues therein.

    3)    Manage the development of the IETF's basic portfolio and in
particular would be responsible for the 'normalization' of as much of the
pre-existing portfolio as possible under the 'current operating rules'. The
Normalization is the process of approaching the previous IP owners to
perfect the IP transference on Paper and the licensing terms supported by
the submission.

----

Any of the Attorney's on the list got any other ideas? Perhaps some
regionalization and the appropriate licensing. For instance it would be cool
to publish the RFC's in Chinese, Japanese and other languages. But there is
an IP regionalization or cross-literalization/knowledge-representation issue
that has to be hashed out to make that work...

Just thinking.

Todd

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:01:41 +0100

Todd,
you would get listened to more if you were to make suggstions that were 
relevant to the situation of today.

BCP 101 section 3:

>    The IASA is responsible for managing all intellectual property rights
>    (IPR), including but not limited to trademarks, and copyrights that
>    belong to the IETF.  The IASA is also responsible for managing the
>    ownership, registration, and administration of relevant domain names.
>    The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
>    on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect, and manage the rights that
>    the IETF needs to carry out its work.

The suggestion should go to the IAD, who heads the IASA, or to the chair of 
the IAOC, which oversees his work.

This is none of the business of the IESG or the IETF chair any more.

(BTW, I think the idea of normalizing the IPR state of older documents is a 
Good Idea. I think the idea of using paper to do so is a very poor one.
BTW2 - I have never heard of WIPO using IETF IPR.)

--On 5. desember 2005 18:12 -0800 todd glassey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> and inventories the rights sets constraining the existing portfolio so
> that it can be "normalized through the 'new release sign-off process'"
>
>     2)    Managing the interfaces between the IETF and other SO's using
> its IP including WIPO and other Global SO's - would be personally
> responsible for working with WIPO and other SO's on their use of IETF
> documents and content, and the licensing terms for that. Additionally
> this individual will be responsible for the model in which other SDO
> publication's  and their content can be referenced within IETF without
> copyright or derivative use issues therein.
>
> pre-existing portfolio as possible under the 'current operating rules'.
> The Normalization is the process of approaching the previous IP owners to
> regionalization and the appropriate licensing. For instance it would be
> cool to publish the RFC's in Chinese, Japanese and other languages. But
> there is an IP regionalization or
> cross-literalization/knowledge-representation issue that has to be hashed
> out to make that work...
>
> Just thinking.
>
> Todd
>
>
>