Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:57:58 -0700

If the idea of creating the "new code" was intended to clarify the current policy, but not actually solve problems, then the new code would never have been developed in the first place. In fact, the entire purpose of the IPR working group has been to clarify the existing policy, and therefore fix most (if not all) of the problems encountered to date by the IETF, and the group is well on their way to doing this with the completion of the three documents.

As I see it, the attempt to change the IETF IPR policy is not an attempt to actually fix an existing problem, but to try and promote "RAND" as a major problem in the IETF (which it has not really been), and then claim it can only be fixed by adopting an RF-only IPR policy.

Brian is spot-on: We need to allow the new code to run for some period of time (1-2 years) before it can be determined if any _real_ (as opposed to theoretical) problems still exist. Rechartering before this has occured would be premature, at best.

In addition, for those touting the W3C policy as "the solution" the IETF should adopt, it would also be foolish to adopt that model until it has been proven to work, as well. While some folks claim that the W3C has "fixed" the problem, in fact nothing related to actually developing technical standards has been shown to be fixed; a new IPR policy has been drafted, and now we must await the inevitable train wreck that will ensue as the W3C attempts to implement the policy. I would give that 1-2 years as well, before passing judgment on whether or not it actually had any positive impact on the W3C's ability to develop standards.

Lastly, the FTC hearings last year were not about discussing "the anti-competitiveness of RAND in standards"; they were about the effect of IPR in standards overall, and many valid presentations were made which supported the RAND model, which is why many major standards development organizations support that model, and will continue to do so, without interference from the FTC.

chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Lo [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:08 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem
> 
> 
> It's been made very clear throughout the process that the 
> "new code" is
> only a clarification of existing policy, not a change of that policy.
> Whatever problems existed before (at the very least, the ones 
> I noted in
> my original message) will still exist.  I don't expect we should have
> perfect information.  But I think it is fair to try to have the best
> information so we can assess whether changes are needed.  I don't
> understand what the downside is.

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:31 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Rechartering to focus on problem
> > 
> > I also heard the statement that we should run the new code (i.e. the
> > clarified documents) for a reasonable time, such as a year, before
> > attempting to judge whether there actually is anything broken
> > that needs fixing. [I heard that statement because I made it, but
> > people seemed to agree.]
> > 
> > In other words, rechartering *now* would simply be 
> premature, because
> > we have no basis for making judgements about the clarified 
> documents.
> > 
> >    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:42:17 -0500

Powers Chuck-rxcp20 writes:
 > Brian is spot-on: We need to allow the new code to run for some
 > period of time (1-2 years) before it can be determined if any
 > _real_ (as opposed to theoretical) problems still
 > exist. Rechartering before this has occured would be premature, at
 > best.

Please forgive me if I notice that the people defending patented
standards are representatives (TANR) of patent holders.  That the
people defending the status quo are long-term members of the IETF.
That the people defending an RF policy are the ones who will be locked
out of standards.  And all of us think that we're protecting the
public good.

-- 
-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: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:01:36 -0800

On 3/19/03 at 10:42 AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:

>standards are representatives (TANR) of patent holders.

Oh, like Keith Moore or Scott Bradner?

>That the people defending the status quo are long-term members of the IETF.

Indeed. Those who have been long-term participants (members is such a 
silly word to use in the IETF) in the IETF are the best ones to see 
the tradeoffs in the standards process that RF-only folks are asking 
us to make. And given that long-term folks are not completely devoid 
of IPR experience, and that many of them are in the open source 
community, it seems that having the full picture is a lot better than 
those of you who have not participated in the IETF in the past.

>That the people defending an RF policy are the ones who will be 
>locked out of standards.

There are plenty of open source people in the IETF who do not agree 
that the current policy will lock them out of standards. The current 
policy allows the participants to choose what kind of IPR 
restrictions they are willing to tolerate. That has rarely been used 
for anything other than unencumbered or RF (and even then, RF itself 
is rare). Furthermore, the same people who you claim above are 
"representatives" of IPR holders are the same people who have argued 
vociferously against using encumbered technology in the IETF. You 
haven't given any explanation for thinking that they've changed their 
minds. (I see plenty of evidence to the contrary.)

>And all of us think that we're protecting the public good.

Protecting the public good involves lots of things, not the least of 
which is engineering the best solutions to problems. To preclude in 
principle some of those solutions because they *might* have other 
than RF encumbrances is irresponsible if you are looking to protect 
the public good. Weighing the problems of IPR against other 
engineering considerations (which is what the current policy says) 
seems a better defense of the public good.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:46:49 -0800

Since I was asked privately: I don't know my employer's official 
position on the IETF's IPR policy (if they have any at all), so I 
don't know if what I've said agrees or disagrees with that policy. 
(Last week, I did ask a co-worker whether they thought that that my 
stating my opposition to changing the IETF IPR policy would piss off 
anyone at QUALCOMM. He said he didn't think so, but I don't know if 
he had significantly more knowledge than I do about the matter.)
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:29:11 -0500

> Oh, like Keith Moore or Scott Bradner?

Or Pete Resnick?

 > "representatives" of IPR holders are the same people who have argued 

TANR.  There Are No Representatives (even though a company would
surely have a policy against an individual using a company email
address while acting in a standards body on standards of interest to
the company, if that individual was not representing the company.
Ignore Jorge at your peril.)

TANR -- the modern-day equivalent of whistling past the graveyard.  I,
too, used to whistle past the graveyard, until one day I heard
something move.  I looked, and saw a formless shape up in the
cemetary.  I turned on the flashlight, and there were two flowing eyes
hovering over a grave.  And then the deer ran off.  Do you think TANR?

I'm not trying to demean anybody's motives here.  I'm just pointing
out the motives.  I'm assuming that everybody means well.  *You* do,
don't you?

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:00:16 -0800

Hi Chuck,

Let me make sure I understand your proposal.  Motorola wants at least
1-2 years more in which to mine its patent portfolio for possible
assertion against IETF's standards without incurring any RF licensing
obligation?

I vote NO.

/Larry Rosen

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Powers Chuck-rxcp20
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:58 AM
> To: 'Allen Lo'; Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
> If the idea of creating the "new code" was intended to 
> clarify the current policy, but not actually solve problems, 
> then the new code would never have been developed in the 
> first place. In fact, the entire purpose of the IPR working 
> group has been to clarify the existing policy, and therefore 
> fix most (if not all) of the problems encountered to date by 
> the IETF, and the group is well on their way to doing this 
> with the completion of the three documents.
> 
> As I see it, the attempt to change the IETF IPR policy is not 
> an attempt to actually fix an existing problem, but to try 
> and promote "RAND" as a major problem in the IETF (which it 
> has not really been), and then claim it can only be fixed by 
> adopting an RF-only IPR policy.
> 
> Brian is spot-on: We need to allow the new code to run for 
> some period of time (1-2 years) before it can be determined 
> if any _real_ (as opposed to theoretical) problems still 
> exist. Rechartering before this has occured would be 
> premature, at best.
> 
> In addition, for those touting the W3C policy as "the 
> solution" the IETF should adopt, it would also be foolish to 
> adopt that model until it has been proven to work, as well. 
> While some folks claim that the W3C has "fixed" the problem, 
> in fact nothing related to actually developing technical 
> standards has been shown to be fixed; a new IPR policy has 
> been drafted, and now we must await the inevitable train 
> wreck that will ensue as the W3C attempts to implement the 
> policy. I would give that 1-2 years as well, before passing 
> judgment on whether or not it actually had any positive 
> impact on the W3C's ability to develop standards.
> 
> Lastly, the FTC hearings last year were not about discussing 
> "the anti-competitiveness of RAND in standards"; they were 
> about the effect of IPR in standards overall, and many valid 
> presentations were made which supported the RAND model, which 
> is why many major standards development organizations support 
> that model, and will continue to do so, without interference 
> from the FTC.
> 
> chuck
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:27:01 -0500

Under the current policy, no-one is automatically locked out of standards.

There is some risk that some standards may be sufficiently encumbered that 
some developers may feel they should not implement them.
There is also some risk of negative consequences of any other policy that 
has so far been suggested.

It seems rather odd to propose a major change to the policies and practices 
of the IETF without a clear demonstration of an actual problem.
It seems very odd to propose adopting a major change without actual 
evidence that it will fix any real problem.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: The 10+ years of IETF IPR history I have observed indicate both that 
the claimed problem has not occurred, and that the problems which have 
occurred would not have been ameliorated, and would often have been made 
significantly worse by the proposed policy approach.

PPS: In case it is not clear from the above, I oppose rechartering the 
working group at this time to investigate or make IPR or structural changes.