Subject: Updated agenda, IPR wg

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:50:38 +0100

The IPR WG is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 21, from 1300-1500 in 
the Coronado room.

I suggest the following agenda:

13:00 Introduction, scribes, blue sheet, agenda bash
13:05 Charter status update
13:10 Incoming rights draft - draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-03
   Open issues:
   #1212: What does the copyright notice seek to accomplish?
   #1237: Publish as delta or publish as a 3978 replacement?
13:30 Outgoing rights draft
   Open issues:
   #1199: What license should the IETF grant to third parties on 
Contributions?
   #1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds - what should be permitted?
   #1168 Should all excerpts from non-code parts of RFCs and I-Ds be 
permitted?
   #1169 Should modified excerpts from non-code be permitted?
   #1167 Should there be rules for how excerpts (modified/unmodified) 
from RFCs and I-Ds are labelled?
   #1175 How can code be distinguished from non-code?
 We will go through the document by section, trying to sketch out what 
needs to go there - trying for agreements on principles.
14:15 Next steps
14:30 IPR licensing and requests for info from the secretariat
 An issue has been identified with 3979 with regard to the secretariat 
asking about licensing rights in IPR
 disclosed by 3rd parties. This needs clarification.
   #1238 is its issue number.
14:40 Issues raised by Todd Glassey
  The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a triage on the issues 
raised by Todd Glassey on the mailing list.
  If there are concerns shared by other participants, they should be 
refined and resolved; if the concerns are not shared by anyone else,
  the issues may be closed as "no change needed".

  The issues open:
    #1197: How is intellectual property transferred or licensed to the IETF?
    #1239: Understanding intent of participants
    #1240: Legal review of BCP 78 3.3 needed?
    #1241: Does BCP 78 3.3.a(e) give away all rights to the IP involved?
    #1242: Do BCPs require different IPR procedures than other RFCs?
    #1243: What are the qualifications of the Trustees of the IETF Trust?
    #1244: How is oversight and respect going to be enforced?

15:00 Close

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:38:44 +0100

Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> The IPR WG is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, March 21, from 1300-1500
> in the Coronado room.
>

One issue seem to be missing here.

ISSUE: Should this document discuss outbound rights, and in particular
       should it limit the possible outbound rights that the IETF
       Trust are permitted to grant?

We discussed this before, see:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/3568

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:43:33 -0600

You're right. I had not added that. Now changed:

#1246: Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights?

There was another issue from Todd too, so I'll send out an updated 
agenda tomorrow.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:48:29 +0100

> #1246: Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights?

Looks good to me.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:28:49 -0800

Simon - in reply I want to see both RFC3978 and 79 reved. I have also
suggested adding more language about eSign to the IPR disclosure page and
also a commentary about 'that 3rd party disclosures may be illegal in some
jurisdictions' etc.

I also proposed creating a Document Submission Page that was like the IPR
Disclosure Page and this would formally invoke eSign to make the
conveyance of the document legally enforceable. Its actually really easy and
then the Web-Form would then pass the 'legally submitted' document to the
Editors via email and I would be happy with that.

I also want to suggest to Bradner and Bellovin that they alter the Standards
Process Documents so that IESG's last act PRIOR to issuing a Standard is to
get a real wet-signed release document from the submitter of the initiative
assuming all responsibility for the copyright issues. Why not - this is an
Internet Standard being issued

And by the way - does the IETF issue certificates or PDF 'official
Standard's documents for those that actually make the grade - Can you
imagine having a real IETF Standard's Certificate on your wall - talk about
cool. I bet we could get that company that does the Patent Plaques to issue
them too.  This would be really good PR too.

Todd Glassey