Subject: Proposed BCP78 Language Changes

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:57:54 -0700

I want to propose the following review of BCP78 language specific to 
Submitters and Ownership/Follow-on Rights as currently spelled out in BCP78. 
They are wrong and this makes the BCP79 licenses ineffective so this needs 
some review to insure the BCP79 license is enforceable.

Without adieu - turn to page 13 and section 6...:

    1)    in  - 6.  Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions

Section six is missing a whole bunch of language about the integrity of the 
IETF's process. I propose adding the following

"In all instances the IETF is committed to open and fair processes, and as 
such may only publish content for which all of the known IP Rights Owner's 
are disclosed. This is a critical piece of IETF operations because it 
insures that all of the development of associated protocols was done in a 
transparent manner".

    2)    in 6's opening paragraph remove the following words:

   "even for  Internet Drafts that are not intended to become part of the 
Standards Process"

 since it is irrelevant detail here in this statement and creates a mindset 
that all ID's are not treated alike under the IPR models which simply isn't 
true.  The licensing input model for IP is the intake more for IP whether 
its for use in the IETF as a part of the IETF process or for vetting through 
the IETF's Engineering Pools (aka WG's).

    3)    7.5.  Who Does This Apply To?

Let move on to 7.5 because is so badly broken that a first year law student 
would choke on it...

   Rights and licenses granted to the IETF under this document are
   granted to all individuals noted in Section 1(a), irrespective of
   their employment or institutional affiliation.

Yeah - I dont think so. We represent our sponsors period. Whether we are 
self-sponsored or otherwise and this where it lies. And with this next part 
its even worse:

------------------------------
   However, these
   licenses do not extend broadly to the employers, sponsors or
   institutions of such individuals, nor do they authorize the
   individuals to exercise any rights outside the specific context of
   the IETF Standards Process.
-------------------------------

Yeah - again no...    The Derivative Rights and Licenses belong to who they 
belong to. The IETF has nothing to say about the relationship between the 
IETF Participant and the Sponsor and that's it, end of statement. Otherwise 
the IETF is tortuously interfering with a commercial entity's ability to 
send its representatives to the IETF.

You may want to have your sponsor's legal department review this as well.

So look - with the excerpt from BCP78 above:

    a)     Parties who are sponsored MAY NOT make this assertion. Whether 
they represent their sponsor legally or not, it is their Sponsor themselves 
who owns the IP they are producing or donating to the IETF and not the 
participant's so this language needs to be adjusted to represent that.

Otherwise the submission of anything is a violation of fraud by wire 
statutes in the US as I see it. How about it counsel's - is the submission 
of something to the IETF an issue here when this section claims that the 
property and the rights to it belong ONLY to the submitter...

    b)    Since the Parties who are submitting and providing the vetting of 
IP Services on behalf of their Sponsor's Work Product Rights under US 
Copyright Law, unless there is a supplemental agreement between the Sponsor 
and the IETF this claim of "owns no other rights" isnt enforceable as well 
as far as I can tell.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey 

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:02:24 +0200

The WG has come to consensus on draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-09 as a 
replacement for RFC 3978 and 4748 (the two components of BCP 78). When 
this document is published, it will become BCP 78.

Further proposals for changes to BCP 78 need to be couched as proposals 
for changing draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-09, not as proposals for 
changes to RFC 3978.

                          Harald

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:17:05 -0700

If BCP78 fails to properly contractually intake IP into the IETF it doesnt 
matter what the IESG thinks of it. The point is not to negotiate a contract 
but to come to a set of words which satisfy the goals of the IETF and the 
process.

That said the IESG's voting in a secret cabal is not acceptable either but 
that will change soon enough as well as the liability profiles of the 
participants.

As to moving forward the changes I proposed fix what are obvious problems in 
the contractual structure of the document you are proposing as a standard. 
The refusal to look at those because you personally dont want to doesnt 
change the requirement's either. In fact claiming that because there is no 
consensus for language which implements specific features doesnt make those 
unnecessary either.

I suggest that the IESG would be negligent if they allowed either BC78 or 79 
to be advanced or put into service until the entire document and contract is 
defined. Otherwise they themselves will become liable for the negligence 
that occurs therein one would think.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed BCP78 Language Changes

> for changing draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-09, not as proposals for

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1664 - Release Date: 9/10/2008 
6:00 AM