Subject: Todd Glassey's issues list

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:59:08 +0100

Note that I have failed to locate a mail from Todd Glassey that has his 
"issue 4 and 5" - one mail contained issues 1-3, and the next one 
claimed to be raising issue #6. So there may be more out there.

This mail contains my current thinking on these issues. Please comment 
if your opinion differs sharply from what's below.

 The issues open:
   #1197: How is intellectual property transferred or licensed to the IETF?
     Right to copy of a non-document contribution is licensed by means 
of the participants' assumed knowledge of the NOTE WELL statement.
     In the case of I-Ds, it's licensed by the explicit notation in the 
draft referencing the BCPs.
     In neither case is any exclusive right transferred, and in neither 
case is any "wet" signature required.
     No rights to patents are ever transferred or licensed to the IETF 
through the standards process.
     This is expressed in the current BCPs, and no change is needed to 
address this issue.
   #1239: Understanding intent of participants
     I believe this to be irrelevant to the IPR WG's work.
   #1240: Legal review of BCP 78 3.3 needed?
     No.
   #1241: Does BCP 78 3.3.a(e) give away all rights to the IP involved?
     No.
   #1242: Do BCPs require different IPR procedures than other RFCs?
     No.
   #1243: What are the qualifications of the Trustees of the IETF Trust?
     They are expected to retain legal advice as appropriate, and it's 
not appropriate for the IPR WG to codify requirements.
     Any feedback on desired qualities of IETF trustees should be given 
to the appointing bodies at the appropriate time.
   #1244: How is oversight and respect going to be enforced?
     Not via the output of the IPR WG.

Meeting in 2 days.

                      Harald

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:42:02 -0800

In response Harald -
There are a total of ten issues and some new proposed changes to BCP78 and
BCP79 which I will submit tomorrow. Also a new Standards Issuance Process
which will require a formally signed document to protect the IETF and IESG
when they issue a standard.

BTW - do you plan to Simulcast/stream the meeting? and if so where are the
details...

More in response to Haralds jokes below -

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:59 AM
Subject: Todd Glassey's issues list

> claimed to be raising issue #6. So there may be more out there.

yes they came up over a period of time - next time I will block them all
together - hey by the way how come we dont have a IPR-WG Collaborative
Site? - phpBB or something like it would be cool -

> of the participants' assumed knowledge of the NOTE WELL statement.

NOTE WELL may actually be an invasion of privacy if anything is done with
it. This needs to be reviewed I think.

> draft referencing the BCPs.

Which makes it legal? - the BCP is what is flawed...

> case is any "wet" signature required.

No that is not true and I believe a Court would agree with me too.

> through the standards process.

Not true, and so what if it was true?  - the issue is what damage to those
patent rights does IETF publishing do?

>      I believe this to be irrelevant to the IPR WG's work.

Then you have not looked at US Contract Law - the intent of the participants
in the Contract is critical.

>    #1240: Legal review of BCP 78 3.3 needed?

Who is making this decision - you?

>    #1241: Does BCP 78 3.3.a(e) give away all rights to the IP involved?

Sure it does - just read it "For any and all uses" is pretty clear right?

>    #1242: Do BCPs require different IPR procedures than other RFCs?

Sure they do if you intend to expire them. If you dont intend to formally
issue guidance that BCP's use may only be done during the period of its
effectivity, then you cant use the term BCP - it was codified in the
industry and the IETF's terms cannot make a mockery of the Industry's.
Sorry...

> not appropriate for the IPR WG to codify requirements.

Didnt the IPR-WG create the Trust documentation?

>      Not via the output of the IPR WG.

Which is to say that the Management of the IETF's IP Working Group refuses
to address these issues -

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:57:56 -0600

> BTW - do you plan to Simulcast/stream the meeting? and if so where are the
It will be audiocast. Details seem hard to come by at the moment.