Subject: Request for legal review of IPR documents

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:05:26 +0530

Jorge,

before sending the IPR documents to the IESG for approval, I would like
to have a last formal review by the IETF lawyer of the documents.

Given that the IETF wishes to retain its working methods of regarding 
contributors as individuals and requiring no formal membership agreement, 
the current documents don't suggest changing the fundamental working 
methods of the IETF in any significant way.

On that background, I'd like you to answer the following questions:

- Are legal terms, when used in the documents, either defined in the
documents or used in conformance with normal practice?
- Are the statements that relate to legal issues correctly representing
applicable law, and in particular not misrepresenting the law of ISOC's
place of incorporation?
- Are the processes as described such that the IETF, in the case of
disputes over copyright, is unlikely to be held liable for violation of
copyright licenses?
- Are the processes as described such that the IETF participants, and
the general public, if they assume that the processes have been followed
by other parties, can freely use the IETF's publication products in the
ways described in these documents, without fear of violating any
copyright licenses?

If the answers to all those questions are "yes", and you have no other
comments on the documents that you think need addressing, we will feel
more confident that these documents are ready for IETF Last Call and
IESG approval.

              Harald Alvestrand, speaking as WG chair

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

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:27:36 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: Contreras, Jorge
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Request for legal review of IPR documents
> 
> Jorge,
> 

JLC> Harald, I'm happy to respond to these questions.  Before doing so,
though,
I'd like to clarify a few things about my (multiple) roles in this
process,
so that there's no ambiguity about who I represent as a lawyer.  First,
of course, I am one of the named editors of this document.  From that,
you can assume that I support the proposal made in the document and
believe
that it is a reasonable thing to adopt.  Second, among my other duties,
I provide legal advice to the IETF Trust, an independent entity whose
charge is to hold and administer intellectual property on behalf of the
IETF community.  The Trustees of the IETF Trust are the IAOC members,
and
I owe them and the Trust various duties as their legal advisor.

This being said, with your permission, I also offer legal views on
IPR-WG
Matters as a member of the WG, and as a lawyer.  I do this on a pro bono
(free)
basis.  I don't represent any individual
person or company in the WG, and anyone who wants an "official" legal
opinion
in that respect should consult their personal or company counsel.

> documents or used in conformance with normal practice?

JLC> Yes, I believe so.

> - Are the statements that relate to legal issues correctly 
> representing applicable law, and in particular not misrepresenting the
law 
> of ISOC's place of incorporation?

JLC> To the best of my knowledge, yes.

> disputes over copyright, is unlikely to be held liable for 
> violation of copyright licenses?

JLC>  The procedures outlined in this document are intended to protect
the IETF community and the IETF Trust from copyright claims to the
greatest
extent possible, given the structure of the IETF and its standards 
development activities.  While it is always possible that someone may
sue the IETF Trust and/or individual members of the IETF community
under some copyright infringement theory, we have attempted to structure
these policies so as to minimize the risk that such a suit would
ultimately result in liability.

> the general public, if they assume that the processes have 
> been followed by other parties, can freely use the IETF's publication 
> products in the ways described in these documents, without fear of
violating any
> copyright licenses?

JLC> As noted above, we have attempted to structure these documents
and the processes they describe to offer a high degree of reliability
to users of IETF standards documents, given existing IETF structures and
processes.  While claims of copyright infringement are always possible, 
if all representations and warranties made by Contributors in these
documents are assumed to be true, users of IETF standards should have
little to no risk of liability for copyright infringement.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:16:41 -0800

Jorge - I am IN THE PROCESS of verifying the Conflict Of Interest with 
Wilmer-Hale's Conflicts Department. I missed them today but left a pretty 
detailed voicemail message.

Let me tell you what I think. I think it's a serious conflict of interest 
for you or any employee of Wilmer-Hale to participate as anything other than 
an advisor to the IETF meaning after being formally retained by the 
IETF/IESG or any of the other orgs as well.

Its too bad too because it would be good to formally be able to get real 
'legal review' on the contract portions of the process. But since you 
represent the management of the IETF, you are forever tainted.

Sorry, but it is what it is.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Request for legal review of IPR documents

> process, so that there's no ambiguity about who I represent as a lawyer.

That's what is unacceptable. You nor anyone else from Wilmer-Hale can 
participate in the Standards Process from what I see, as these are  all 
pretty clear conflicts of interest.

>   First,
> of course, I am one of the named editors of this document.

Again - neither the WG nor the IETF or its parent organizations can 
authorize you to exceed any contracted roles without the approval OF ALL OF 
THE WG and MEMBERS who's actions those efforts of yours effect and in this 
instance its everyone inside the IETF standards process, so again I object 
formally.

> From that,

Which eliminates in and of itself ANY possible participation in this effort 
since it is these WG's that are drafting process  for constraining the 
operations of the Trust.

>
> This being said, with your permission,

Denied.

>  I also offer legal views on
> IPR-WG
> (free) basis.   I don't represent any individual
> opinion in that respect should consult their personal or company counsel.

Again - There is no way you can separate your role as the Counsel to the 
Trust from yourself as a private citizen so that you can participate in the 
IETF process AFAIK.