Subject: Re: "Hum" -- should we recharter now?

From: Chuck AdamsJr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:41:00 -0500

No, we should not recharter at this time.

Chuck Adams
Program Director of Standards
Intellectual Property & Licensing
IBM Corporation
North Castle Drive, Armonk, New York

(914)-765-4382 [Internal 8/251-4382] Fax (914)-765-4420
Internet: [email-masked]

                      Steve Bellovin                                                                                                   
                      <[email-masked]        To:       [email-masked]                                                               
                      .com>                    cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  "Hum" -- should we recharter now?                                             
                      ipr-wg-admin@ietf                                                                                                
                      .org                                                                                                             

                      03/26/2003 01:29                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                      Please respond to                                                                                                
                      ipr-wg                                                                                                           

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

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

---

From: "Joe Zebarth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:54:59 -0500

In response to the question:

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

my answer is, no we should not.

Kindest regards,

Joe Zebarth
Dept. 6L41
ATI Strategic Standards
Nortel Networks (Canada)
Phone: +1 613 765 8481
ESN:    6+395 8481
Fax:     +1 613 763 2697
ESN:    6+393 2697

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bellovin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: "Hum" -- should we recharter now?

   

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

---

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:10:03 -0800

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

No, we should not recharter now. I think that the clarifications 
should be given "run time" prior to any assessment being made as 
to whether we need any modifications to the IPR policy.

-- Val See

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:58:42 -0800

> a substantially new IPR policy?

No.  It's been my experience that the current IPR policy
works reasonably well.  While I might think that an RF policy
might be more elegant, it is unclear whether it can be
implemented satisfactorily.  I would prefer to let the W3C
and other large SDOs experiment with RF policies for a significant
period of time (3-5 years) before we (the IETF) entertain
reevaluation of the status quo.

Kurt

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:45:41 +0200

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

No. The clarifications were needed and we have them. I don´t see need for rechartering. Current policy gives flexibility and suits well for organization like IETF.

Janne Vesterinen

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:47:32 -0800

No, the IPR working group should not recharter at this time.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:30:07 -0500

The IPR WG should not be re-chartered at this time.

Hung Ling

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:47:54 +0100

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

No.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.