Subject: WG Last Call reissuing: draft-ietf-rules-update-07

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:14:22 -0700

The one-week Last Call on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07 ended on August 
4. This is a somewhat belated
summary of concerns raised.

In total, Simon Josefsson, Frank Ellermann, Brian Carpenter, Scott Brim, 
Bill Fenner, Jorge Contreras, John Klensin, Ted Hardie and Todd Glassey 
participated in the discussion.

- Simon Josefsson argued that the time given for review was much too short
- Simon Josefsson argued that the new section 3.3 did not permit the 
Trust to sublicense more rights than current practice; Jorge Contreras 
argued that the existing rights are exactly what this update aims to 
describe
- Simon Josefsson argued that the term "IETF Participant" is not 
defined; Jorge Contreras pointed at section 2.4 bullet 8.
- Simon Josefsson, Frank Ellermann and Brian Carpenter had a discussion 
about "IETF documents", "Contributions" and "RFC Editor contributions"
- John Klensin pointed out that if we were to substantially rely on the 
difference between documents that are part of the standards process and 
those that are not, we'd better start marking them properly; Jorge 
pointed out that he was only pointing out that documents can be part of 
the standards process whenever they're submitted to the IETF.
- Todd Glassey had a series of comments

I cannot draw a conclusion from this discussion. It is not clear to me 
that any substantive issues that can be resolved by changes to the 
document under discussion have been raised and remain a consensus 
concern for the WG.

Given that the discussion was inconclusive, and that the issue of the 
Trust update is of some urgency, I am reissuing a Last Call and am 
asking for a simple answer from all participants:

A - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07
B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00
C - I refuse to support either option

Please send a note with one of those 3 answers to the list before 
Friday, August 18.

                      Harald, for the chairs

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:05:25 +0200

speaking as an individual.

As an IETF Trust trustee I could accept either draft.

As an Area Director I will support the WG consensus whatever it is.

    Brian

---

From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:10:13 -0400

> B - Go forward with draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update-00

The trust update is too important to tie it up with bits that are
controversial.  While the authors of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07
made a valiant effort to make it non-controversial, they apparently
still failed.  Let the trust update go through and keep working
towards consensus on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update.

  Bill

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:45:15 -0700

B.

I agree with everything Bill said below.
			
			Ted

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:05:24 -0400

> document under discussion have been raised and remain a consensus

Agree

> C - I refuse to support either option

A.

If A doesn't get enough support then I am not against B.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:06:38 -0700

C

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:48:23 +0200

> C - I refuse to support either option

I don't have a strong objection to A, it seems to be a pretty good
document, and the problems I raised with it wasn't as severe as I
thought, but I still don't think we have had enough time to review A.

Therefor my preference is B.

It seems unclear to me whether this WG should produce documents that
contain legally binding text.  I perceived one objection to my
proposed update to RFC 3978 to be that this WG doesn't have the
competence to write and review a legal document, and that it would be
better to write a document that reflect our intentions, and let the
IETF Trust, through its legal arms, write the legal text that
corresponds to the IETF's wishes.  I can see both advantages and
disadvantages with that approach.  However, if it is a valid argument,
it should apply to all documents proposed to this WG, and not only to
my documents.  Document A above contains a lot of new legal text.

/Simon

---

From: "Lucy E. Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT)

> towards consensus on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update.

what he said - I'd prefer option B.

- Lucy

Lucy E. Lynch 				Academic User Services
Computing Center			University of Oregon
llynch  @darkwing.uoregon.edu		(541) 346-1774

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:14:59 -0400

--On Friday, August 11, 2006 3:14 AM -0700 Harald Alvestrand 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Given that the discussion was inconclusive, and that the issue
> of the Trust update is of some urgency, I am reissuing a Last
> Call and am asking for a simple answer from all participants:
>
> Please send a note with one of those 3 answers to the list
> before Friday, August 18.

B

I do not believe that draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-07 is quite 
ready for prime time and strongly object to even the possibility 
of doing something now that will need to be revised (in the same 
sections and subsections) as the WG moves forward.  The IETF has 
introduced, and tolerated, far too much instability in the area 
of IPR policies already; more would not be sensible.

    john