Subject: "hum" in San Francisco against rechartering

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:03:51 -0500

There was a clear consensus in the room in San Francisco against 
rechartering.  In the next day or so, I'll post a note to gauge the 
consensus of the mailing list as well -- it's a hard problem, and I 
want to try to establish as clear a result as possible.  

		--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: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:15:54 +0200 (EET)

> want to try to establish as clear a result as possible.  

A few points on the hum procedure.

 1. was this the right time to decide the issue?

 2. was it sufficiently clear what the implications of for/against were,
so that the hum would be useful.

 3. perhaps one should have first asked how many people are employed (or
sponsored) by organizations having IPR, or even more specifically
sponsored by an organization which profits or would profit from the
current policy at the expense of the Internet *)

Perhaps then we wouldn't have had a need to perform the actual humming.

*) the general policy of RFC2026 is:
   In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
   intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
   large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:39:28 -0500

> A few points on the hum procedure.

and my personal opinions

>  1. was this the right time to decide the issue?

Yes.  It's been scheduled for weeks, and was implied in mail exchanges
ever since the last physical meeting.

> so that the hum would be useful.

Yes.

> current policy at the expense of the Internet *)

The arguments about chartering were all reasonable, I thought.  Do you
want to change the procedures of the IETF?  Do you want to say that
anyone benefiting from an outcome of an issue is disqualified from
speaking about that issue?  If you did that, we wouldn't be able to do
any engineering work either.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:39:50 +0200 (EET)

> any engineering work either.

Everyone should exercise their best engineering judgment.  Whether that's
the case in practise is a thing that may need considering.  The purpose of
the IETF is (IMO?) not to benefit from the specification or implementation
of the standards. (Rather, e.g. building good implementations and having
people buy them because they're good.)

That makes one wonder whether all the people remembered the basic tenet of
the RFC2026 IPR policy which I mentioned in the previous mail, that is, to
benefit the Internet community and public at large. (*NOT* to benefit the
sponsor as long as the Internet doesn't suffer too badly.)

For some folks, this seems like a good reason for recusing from such
decisions, as it's supposedly difficult to be inpartial if you're too
deeply involved in the IPR mess.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:04:50 +0100

Pekka Savola wrote:
...
> sponsor as long as the Internet doesn't suffer too badly.)

A policy that works in the actual world, with its existing
political and legal consensus about the legitimacy of intellectual
property rights, seems to meet Pekka's test. I think that was the
basis of the original IETF consensus on our policy, and what we are
hearing is that nothing substantive has changed in the political
and legal consensus that justifies a change in the IETF consensus.

   Brian

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:35:22 -0800

Wait a second here.

Is this a new thread encouraging the formal issue of re-chartering to be
debated online?  Or are we merely talking about "hum" in San Francisco?

Please re-state the question you're placing before the membership today.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: "hum" in San Francisco against rechartering
> 
> 
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> ...
> > That makes one wonder whether all the people remembered the basic 
> > tenet of the RFC2026 IPR policy which I mentioned in the previous 
> > mail, that is, to benefit the Internet community and public 
> at large. 
> > (*NOT* to benefit the sponsor as long as the Internet 
> doesn't suffer 
> > too badly.)
> 
> political and legal consensus about the legitimacy of 
> intellectual property rights, seems to meet Pekka's test. I 
> think that was the basis of the original IETF consensus on 
> our policy, and what we are hearing is that nothing 
> substantive has changed in the political and legal consensus 
> that justifies a change in the IETF consensus.
> 
>    Brian

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:11:20 -0500

> any engineering work either.

No, we'd just like to see a committment from Cisco to license any
patents on a non-discriminatory and royalty-free basis on all
standards that you work on.

And I don't mean to pick on Cisco by saying this.

-- 
-russ nelson   angry-economist.russnelson.com   | "What Problem Are You Trying
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | To Solve?" is a service mark
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of Crynwr Software.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:47:05 -0500

In message <037a01c2ecf7$0784b4d0$927ba8c0@ROSENGARDEN>, "Lawrence E. Rosen" wr
>Please re-state the question you're placing before the membership today.

As I said, I'll post the formal mailing list "hum" on rechartering in 
the next day or so.  Right now, I gave just the bare-bones fact of the 
room's consensus -- there are enough people interested in the question 
that I wanted to get that datum out as soon as possible.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:24:03 -0500

> standards that you work on.

so would I.  but this has nothing at all to do with IETF.