Subject: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:21:18 +0100

Just a reminder....

I have not yet seen a request for time on the IPR agenda that is backed 
with an I-D fulfilling the criteria laid out below.

Simon's "free software guideline" exists as an I-D, but I have not had a 
request to put it on the agenda.

The deadline for -00 I-Ds is in a week.

                  Harald Alvestrand

------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: 25. oktober 2007 14:30 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely
contentious.

So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work
(copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to
recharter the WG to deal with patent issues.

I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the
issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general
discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done,

The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are:

- No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down.

- A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what
the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the IETF
meeting.

- A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More
discussion is necessary.

- No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary.

I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text
(preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible:

- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent
policy

- What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address

- What the charter for this activity should look like

If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each
submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at
least half an hour for general discussion.

Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of
draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us
to find them all.

The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the
rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130.

                Harald

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

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 07:41:31 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> Simon's "free software guideline" exists as an I-D,
> but I have not had a request to put it on the agenda.

It would be odd if I'd request this, but can't even
say if I can watch the IPR meeting over jabber (audio
over a V90 line is anyway hopeless).  Likewise for 
Brian's draft.

 Frank

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:18:38 +0100

> request to put it on the agenda.

I'm not going to be in Vancouver.  I may make it to the jabber/audio
meeting, but it depends on the final meeting time.  If someone in the WG
wishes to advocate the draft, feel free to do so.

/Simon

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:13:26 -0800

As a side note, Any rechartering of a WG should invalidate an PR Actions 
acted on before it...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

 Frank

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800

> The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are:
<snip>

I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others who
have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in Vancouver
either. 

I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an
unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and expensive
way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event, these email lists
have elicited more comments than any meeting in Vancouver could properly
address. How do we intend to move toward consensus?

FWIW, I support Simon's I-D as far as it goes. It is a fine description
about how free software is adversely affected by restricted copyrights and
patents when implementing so-called "open standards." 

But I don't think that I-D will suffice alone, and I still recommend that
the IPR-WG be re-chartered to propose formal IETF policies that require open
standards for the Internet. We should commit in all IETF working groups to
remain aware of the influence of patents and copyrights on our standards, to
react in intelligent ways to any patent or copyright encumbrances brought to
our attention, and all participants in the specification drafting process
should commit formally to produce open standards unencumbered by copyright
or patent royalties or licensing conditions that would limit implementation
by anyone who wants to do so.

The devil is in the details, but Vancouver is not the place to brush those
details under the rug. We need to re-charter the IPR-WG to fill in the
details on a policy for which we can all vote.

The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought up again
and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend an IETF
specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS implementations. Is that
preferable?

If you like, spend 5-10 minutes amongst yourselves in Vancouver discussing
this matter. Let us know what you decide.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Reminder: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
> 
> Just a reminder....
> 
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:12:19 +0000

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others
> who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in
> Vancouver either. 
> 
> unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and
> expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event,
> these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in
> Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward
> consensus?

Per 2418, of course the mailing list decision is the one that counts.
OTOH -- and as is well-understood -- it's often much harder to assess
consensus over the net than in person.  (It's also harder to reach
consensus, in many cases, since email tends to be a polarizing medium,
prone to flames and other forms of intemperate behavior.)

If you have any suggestions for how to deal with these problems -- and
they are problems -- I think the IETF would be very interested in
hearing them.  (And because I realize that this statement can be
misinterpreted, given the lack of tone of voice and body language on a
mailing list, let me stress that I'm being 100% serious, complimentary,
etc.)
> 
> The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought
> up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend
> an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS
> implementations. Is that preferable?
> 
I'm no longer an AD; if I were, my attitude would be simple:  the IETF
has decided, as a group, that patented technology is acceptable.
There's no point to reopening the question every individual document.
Were this a legal matter, I'd cry "stare decisis".  I'm not saying you
shouldn't keep pushing, but if the IESG were to ignore a consensus to
follow the current policy it would be challenged and rightly so.  (The
substantive issue on the document currently being discussed is not the
fact of the patent -- under current policy, that's acceptable -- but
rather the timing of the disclosure.)

The question to discuss now is whether enough has changed since the last
consensus call on this topic, in March-April 2003, that it pays to
reopen the rechartering question.  I personally don't think so, but I'm
willing to be persuaded otherwise.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:14:57 -0500

> There's no point to reopening the question every individual document.

+1

though I'd probably phrase this differently, e.g.: the IETF has decided,
as a group, that a blanket patent policy is counterproductive to IETF's
goals.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:11:43 +1300

On 2007-11-06 08:22, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> FWIW,
> 
> My understanding of the community consensus in 2003 is what Keith said...
> 
> Spencer
> 

Mine too. If I was going to be in Vancouver, I'd ask for a few minutes
to talk about draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-01.txt. That draft
doesn't exist yet, but will do, with the new requirement in the -00
version changed to a mere preference. My objective would be to test the
level of interest in that approach. However, since it is not a change
to RFC 3978, but to the interpretation of RFC 2026 itself, I would argue
*against* rechartering the IPR WG for this tweak.

    Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:22:38 -0600

FWIW,

Spencer