Subject: Repost: "Hum" -- should we recharter now? (fwd)

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:55:34 -0500

Below is a message that I posted to the list on 26 March.  Again, I 
encourage *everyone* on this list to express their preference.  The two 
week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.

--------

We're just about done with the three "clarifications" documents.  We 
now need to decide if we're going to recharter.  The purpose of a 
rechartered IPR working group would be to devise a substantial change 
in the IETF's IPR policy.  One possible new IPR policy would be some 
form of mandatory royalty-free terms; at this point, though, exactly 
what such a new policy would be is not under discussion.

The very simple question I'm posing is this:

	Should the IPR working group recharter at this time to devise
	a substantially new IPR policy?

This question is being posed pursuant to Section 3.3 of RFC 2418.  Note 
in particular the following two paragraphs:

   It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on
   a mailing list.  There are two different cases where a working group
   may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list
   discussion. But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is
   not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two
   individuals may be generating much of the traffic.
   
   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-  
   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who 
   were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into
   account.  If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people
   on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then  
   the consensus should be seen as being verified.  Note that enough
   time should be given to the verification process for the mailing list
   readers to understand and consider any objections that may be raised 
   on the list.  The normal two week last-call period should be
   sufficient for this.

The consensus of the rooms in both Atlanta and San Francisco was 
against rechartering.  Does the mailing list agree or disagree?  To aid 
us all in assessing the consensus of the group, I'm asking *everyone* on 
the list to post a simple yes or no answer to the question give above,
even if you think that everyone already knows your position.  Also, 
please post your reply publicly; don't just reply to me.  To aid in 
that, I've set the Reply-to: header line accordingly.  (But please use 
a different Subject: line for discussions of the topic.)

We'll consider this question on the list for two weeks.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Apr 2003 14:25:42 +1100

> week period mentioned in the last line expires on April 9.

Was there not enough concensus to reword the question posed? No point me
reposting the arguments. I thought there was some buy in for that. If
appropriate I or someone can rethread the post (again). ??

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:02:24 -0500

>appropriate I or someone can rethread the post (again). ??

I could repost my own response, from 28 March, but for now I'll simply 
restate that the question I asked is more or less required by the 
charter, which says:

   If there consensus of the working group for a different IPR policy
   than the one described in RFC 2026, the working group will seek to
   amend its charter to make it clear that it is changing the status quo.

It's reasonable to ask other questions as well, but for maximum clarity 
we want one "hum" at a time.  (We're holding off on wg last calls until 
this one is over, for the exact same reason.)