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

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:29:00 -0500

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: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:48:19 -0500

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

Yes, because talk is cheap and the threat is real.

-- 
-russ nelson   angry-economist.russnelson.com   | If war is the answer, the
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | the question must really
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | suck.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:38:25 -0500

I remain unconvinced that a policy that reduces our flexibility 
for making case-by-case decisions about IPR issues would be in 
our interest.   I would change my mind if someone proposed a 
workable method for getting IPR signoffs from _all_ 
organizations that might assert IPR claims against a document, 
before or after standardization and whether or not the 
organizations participate in the IETF process.

That is a long-winded way of saying "no" to rechartering for 
this purpose at this time.

    john

--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2003 13:29 -0500 Steve Bellovin 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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
>...

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:46:39 -0500

> Yes, because talk is cheap and the threat is real.

What threat?  Please be specific as to proposed goals/milestones.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:46:30 +0100

No, we should not recharter at this time, in my personal opinion.

   Brian

---

From: John Border <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:26:04 -0500

No - We should not recharter at this time.  

     We should give the clarified existing policy some time to have some
impact and then revisit 
     the question in a year or so.

John Border

---

From: Roy Brabson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:37:10 -0500

>    a substantially new IPR policy?

No, we should not recharter at this time.

Roy

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:12 -0600

>	a substantially new IPR policy?

No. The current IPR policy allows case-by-case analysis and no one 
has even suggested a workable alternative.

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: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:09:21 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

I'm not sure the question asked..:

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

.. was a fair one; what I'd have liked more would have been:

       Should the IPR working group recharter at this time to 
       consider whether devising changes to the IPR policy is
       necessary now?

.. which would have highlighted two significant issues:

 1) we may not not yet be sure that/how IPR policy must be substantially 
changed.

 2) this would have allowed smaller amount of changes in the IPR policy, 
if deemed appropriate.

It is likely that this was deliberately reworded as a "all-or-nothing"  
question.  I'm not sure if such scare tactics are appropriate.  Note that
Harald said that if w.g. no hums "no", no working group would likely be
chartered in the near future to change IPR policy, so we should be
careful; getting back to the issue in a year may not even be an option.

Of course, I could be just paranoid.  I'd even consider that likely :-)

Well, the milk's has been spilled and there's no getting it back to the
cup..

-- 
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: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:11:26 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Steve Bellovin wrote:
> even if you think that everyone already knows your position.

Yes.  (Even though I must flinch at the chosen wording for the question;  
it seems too strong in my opinion.)

The reasons should be apparent on my "the recharter question" thread.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:20:37 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Steve Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:29 AM
> Subject: "Hum" -- should we recharter now?
...
...

No.  Let's find out whether RFC 2026 + clarifications have
signficant operational problems before discussing changes.

Randy

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:20 +0200 (EET)

> has even suggested a workable alternative.

Has this group been chartered to suggest workable alternatives?  Or try to
take suggestions, which would be then analyzed and developed into
hopefully workable alternatives?

Thought so...

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:39:05 -0800

I don't think we should re-charter now.  The current process gives
the working group flexibility to meet specific circumstances with
appropriate actions.
				regards,
						Ted

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:52:43 -0600

On 3/26/03 at 11:21 PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:

>>The current IPR policy allows case-by-case analysis and no one has 
>>even suggested a workable alternative.
>
>Has this group been chartered to suggest workable alternatives?

I didn't say it was. However, people have been proposing alternatives 
(well, one alternative in particular) to the current policy. It seems 
substantially less workable than the current policy. Now, if there 
was a wide consensus that there was a serious problem with the 
current policy, I would be more inclined to recharter this working 
group to look into those problems and propose solutions. However, I 
haven't seen such consensus at all. In fact, what I've seen looks 
like wide consensus that there *isn't* a serious problem with the 
current policy.

Look, the IETF is an open organization. Those folks who think there 
are serious problems with current IETF policy are welcome to get 
together and write an Internet Draft (or even get it published as an 
RFC) identifying those problems to convince the rest of us that we 
should form a WG to fix it. You don't need a WG to do that; go form 
your own mailing list and have at it. With such a document in hand, 
there would be a significantly greater chance to get a WG to look 
into alternatives. But the current push from a small minority seems 
to be that we should use IESG time, IAB time, WG chair time, and IETF 
time to go research this issue. Without a significant base of folks 
who feel that this is good work to do, I see no justification for all 
of us to spend lots of our valuable time on it.

pr

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:28:54 -0800 (PST)

To: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> Without a significant base of folks who feel that this is good work to do,
> I see no justification for all of us to spend lots of our valuable time on
> it.

How big a majority would you like?

	:-)

---

From: Stephen Trowbridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:41:29 -0700

Steve,
No, I don't think we should recharter. I don't see that IPR issues have
interfered with successful deployment of technology based on IETF standards.
Steve

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:53:48 -0600

On 3/26/03 at 2:28 PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:

>>Without a significant base of folks who feel that this is good work 
>>to do, I see no justification for all of us to spend lots of our 
>>valuable time on it.
>

Of course, I wouldn't even ask for a majority (not knowing who to 
count). I would only ask for a large number of folks who think it's a 
good idea to work on this and are willing to work on it, and an 
insignificant number of folks who think it's a bad idea to spend our 
time on this or think it will do active damage.

Gee, that sounds a lot like I'm asking for "rough consensus". 
Interesting how that works. :-)

Gee, it also sounds like the latter criteria isn't going to be 
satisfied, at least so far.

pr

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:13:29 -0800 (PST)

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
> time on this or think it will do active damage.

The Open Source community can deliver very many people who feel extremely
strongly about this issue. We've held off doing so, because we didn't
want to show a lack of faith that the existing membership of the IPR WG
would be at least as responsive as W3C. But that's not happened.

We have achieved other large public projects by volunteering our time
into network collaborations like the Linux kernel, Apache, and so on.
Work on IETF IPR policy would not be a challenge.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:31:31 -0600

On 3/26/03 at 3:13 PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:

>>count). I would only ask for a large number of folks who think it's 
>>a good idea to work on this and are willing to work on it, and an 
>>insignificant number of folks who think it's a bad idea to spend 
>>our time on this or think it will do active damage.
>
>The Open Source community can deliver very many people who feel 
>extremely strongly about this issue.

I have no doubt you could get lots of people who want to work on it. 
That's not the problem. Perhaps you missed the second criteria above. 
Let me repeat it for you:

There must be "an insignificant number of folks who think it's a bad 
idea to spend our time on this or think it will do active damage." So 
far, I have seen exactly the opposite; there is a large contingent 
strongly opposing spending our time on this and/or thinking it will 
do active damage. And (luckily for us) it doesn't matter how large a 
group of people you get who support the idea; rough consensus is not 
a count of heads. You're going to have to convince the people that 
oppose it that they shouldn't oppose it.

As I said earlier, the way to do that is to get those folks together 
(*not* on this mailing list), write yourselves an Internet Draft 
and/or publish it as an RFC, and then see if you can garner consensus.

pr
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:37:34 -0500

> Work on IETF IPR policy would not be a challenge.

It seems to me that you're trying to solve a problem the
open source community has, not a problem the IETF has.  As a
working group chair the only real problems I've had with IPR
issues have been the result of uncertainty about existing
policy, not with the policy itself.  

Also, I hope it's understood that the IETF doesn't vote and
that we don't resolve differences on the policy of "majority
rules" (I've seen some recent comments from you guys about
voting and majorities).  There's been a lot of work done on
consensus-based decision-making that you may want to look
at to be able to get a better handle on how things are
supposed to work.  We don't do "real" consensus decision-
making, but I still tend to regard the process as an ideal
to strive for.  One particularly good resource is Michael J
Sheeran's "Beyond Majority Rule."  

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:52:48 -0800 (PST)

> idea to spend our time on this or think it will do active damage."

Obviously, it's possible to continue the argument with such people,
or simply make them statisticaly insignificant. But you are making it
sound as if the system is inherently biased toward "no action". There is
a point that I'm afraid I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating. It
is not possible to have a pure consensus when there are parties to the
discussion who stand to make very large profits at the expense of the
other parties. This is not a technical decision of the sort that you
usually face, and to which consensus applies. What you would see would be
a simple majority.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:12:00 -0800 (PST)

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
> open source community has, not a problem the IETF has.

Please try step back from your own statement enough to understand
my viewpoint.

It is incredibly arrogant for any standards organization to state that
a policy issue that would legally block us simply isn't their problem.
It's a statement of abdication of the responsibilty of any standards
organization. If you can't be that responsive to potential implementors,
your organization would be better viewed as a cartel or a private club.

> As a working group chair the only real problems I've had with IPR
> issues have been the result of uncertainty about existing policy,
> not with the policy itself.  

You should consider yourself lucky. What is certain to us is that
any holder of a patent incorporated in a current IETF standard, under
any of the patent declarations you have already accepted, can block all
Open Source software from implementing that standard. It could happen
tommorrow.

There is no way we can be expected to tolerate that situation.

> There's been a lot of work done on consensus-based decision-making

Which is great, where it works. Does Sheeran cover the fact that there are
certain classes of question for which a consensus simply is not possible?
I don't have a copy.  The matter currently under discussion is of that
class of question.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:28:29 -0500

--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2003 15:52 -0800 Bruce Perens 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> There must be "an insignificant number of folks who think
>> it's a bad  idea to spend our time on this or think it will
>> do active damage."
>
> Obviously, it's possible to continue the argument with such
> people, or simply make them statisticaly insignificant. But
> you are making it sound as if the system is inherently biased
> toward "no action". There is a point that I'm afraid I'm
> repeating myself, but it bears repeating. It is not possible
> to have a pure consensus when there are parties to the
> discussion who stand to make very large profits at the expense
> of the other parties. This is not a technical decision of the
> sort that you usually face, and to which consensus applies.
> What you would see would be a simple majority.

Bruce,

Let me state Pete's suggestion in a different way.  It appears 
--from the mailing list discussions and from the discussions in 
San Francisco-- that the community that has been doing protocol 
and standards work in the IETF for years is unconvinced that 
there is a problem with the existing policies that (i) needs 
solving and (ii) for which there is a plausible solution. 
Speaking as one of those people, I see the combination of

	* a strong preference for unencumbered technology, with
	royalty-free licenses available to all with a minimum of
	fuss as a second choice and any more restrictive
	licensing arrangements as a distant third, with
	
	* per-WG or per-standard evaluation and discretion

as more desirable than an absolute and rigid policy ("RF" or 
otherwise), at least for the IETF.  If that results in our 
standardizing some things that are sufficiently encumbered that 
the Open Source community decides to not implement them, that is 
no worse (from my perspective) than our not having any standard 
at all.  If we choose an encumbered technology when an 
equally-functional unencumbered one exists, we deserve to be 
ignored in the marketplace, and probably will be.

I am, if anything, more convinced today that the flexibility is 
a good thing than I was when these discussions got started a few 
months ago.   As I indicated in my "hum", the thing I find most 
persuasive is our inability to constrain the behavior, however 
pathological, of people and organizations that do not 
participate in the standards process.  And I'm unconvinced about 
the value of withdrawing a standard --people who find the 
standards useful will just ignore us-- even if the issues of 
bogus threats and denial of service attacks can be worked out 
without making the IETF a party in patent litigation.

I am still prepared to believe the policy can be improved.  But, 
at this stage, I think it is time for you and your colleagues 
who feel strongly that we are headed down the wrong path to do 
some serious writing: not repeating your arguments on the 
mailing list (because I think that everyone you are going to 
convince has been convinced), but in Internet-Draft form. 
Propose new text and explain there what is gained by reducing 
the flexibility that is the hallmark of the existing model.  If 
such a draft is coherent clear about the problems it does and 
does not solve,  and convincing about the importance of solving 
those problems, my experience has been that you will have little 
or no difficulty getting a WG authorized, regardless of how this 
"hum" comes out.

Offers/ threats to produce a lot of people who will repeat 
whatever you say, or have been saying, are _much_ less 
persuasive than such a draft.  If you have the draft, you don't 
need them.  If you don't, then they are unlikely to count for 
much.

Just my opinion.

    john

Nonetheless, I'm

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 11:43:16 +1100

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:12, Bruce Perens wrote:
> ..

Bruce, can you please restate the problem you see so it's "simple and
clear" (for me). I think that, at least the way you've currently put it,
would be denied/ is not a correct statement.

thanks
zen

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:46:43 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Bruce Perens" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Workable alternative
...
> But you are making it
> sound as if the system is inherently biased toward "no action".

It is.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is advice most engineers consider
before undertaking a change. (Even then we still make plenty of
mistakes.)  If only politicians and lawyers would abide by that advice!

...
> It
> other parties.

IETF doesn't operate on pure consensus.  We use "rough consensus",
for the reasons you cite, among others.

...
> This is not a technical decision of the sort that you
> usually face, and to which consensus applies.
...

If that were true, then an IETF working group would probably not
be a good mechanism for making such a decision.  However, if
you really want to go down the path of introducing WG decision-making
processes other than those based on rough consensus into the IETF, then
the "problem" WG would probably be a better place for that conversation.

Randy

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:40:54 -0800 (PST)

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is advice most engineers consider
> before undertaking a change.

Would it not be more correct to describe the IETF "consensus" process as:

	If a minority think it's not broken and should not be fixed,
	even though a majority thinks it's broken, don't fix it.

It would be appropriate to take this issue to the problem group, as you
say, IF I was not under the constraint of the two-week deadline by the
IPR WG. That deadline limits my options.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:04:59 -0800 (PST)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
> a strong preference for unencumbered technology

Excuse me for cutting a lot of your text, but I want to focus on this. A
strong preference for unencumbered technology is _not_ indicated by the
patent declarations that IETF has already accepted, under the rules that
are described in the current draft. As far as our attorney can tell,
they are all, without exception, RAND patent declarations.

> per-WG or per-standard evaluation and discretion

This is a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy working to the benefit of
those who would charge royalties. We must monitor every single working
group to make sure that we will be able to implement its work. We must
monitor so often that proprietary technologies don't become
well-embedded in any draft.

> If that results in our standardizing some things that are sufficiently
> encumbered that the Open Source community decides to not implement them

Please do not try to make it look as if we would "decide" not to implement.
We would have no choice. We would be legally prohibited from implementation.
If this was a matter of choice, I would not be bending your ear about it.

> at all.

Well, it's sort of like having a neighborhood that colored people are not
allowed move into. From your perspective, it's no worse than having no
neighborhood there at all, right? But since we're talking about net standards,
perhaps it's more like having a phone system in the ghetto that is separate
from that of the rest of the world, so that you just can't call up the people
who have more rights than you do.

In short, the proposed IPR policy would ghetto-ize us.

> the thing I find most persuasive is our inability to constrain the
> behavior, however pathological, of people and organizations that do not 
> participate in the standards process.

We have to use a different mechanism to go after those folks, one that
IETF can not effect entirely within its own rules. But you are asking
not to attempt at the more general problem because there's a corner
case we know we can't cover. 

Many of us in this WG seem to be striving toward some sort of Platonic
absolute of a standard. The Platonic Absolute Standard is technically
perfect and as efficient as possible - which is referred to as "quality"
around here. But it has the unfortunate feature that only a few can
implement it, because problems that are outside of the technical domain
have been insufficiently considered. The reluctance to solve a greater
problem because of the existence of a pernicious corner case is another
symptom of this sort of Platonism.

> I think it is time for you and your colleagues who feel strongly that we
> are headed down the wrong path to do some serious writing

I have a grant proposal in to fund my permanent, intensive participation in
an IPR WG at IETF. Hopefully, I'll get it, we will know soon. But the problem
is of such seriousness that I sincerely feel that I can allow this window to
close without broad objection from the parties that will feel the effect.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:07:05 -0600

>	even though a majority thinks it's broken, don't fix it.

No, if a minority thinks that it's not broken *and* the foreseeable 
solutions look like they will make things very much broken, even if a 
large number of people who have not been part of the work effort of 
the organization can be dragged in just for the purposes of changing 
one policy, don't change it.

>It would be appropriate to take this issue to the problem group, as 
>you say, IF I was not under the constraint of the two-week deadline 
>by the IPR WG. That deadline limits my options.

What two-week deadline? If you want to change the decision process 
from rough consensus to something else, then you need to go have a 
policy discussion with the problem-statement WG. If the rough 
consensus of this WG as it stands does not wish to take on this work, 
you are more than welcome to bring this work to the IESG and ask for 
a new WG. Why not do that? Oh, I forgot: Actually doing the legwork 
of writing an Internet Draft describing what you think the problem 
really is and persuading folks so that you get *any* kind of rough 
consensus to work on this so-called problem is a lot more work than 
hijacking an already-formed WG.

You know, the nice thing about rough consensus (as against majority 
rule or consensus) is that it's really hard to hijack efforts just by 
packing the room.

You have still provided no evidence that there has been any problem 
for the Open Source community with the current IETF policy. We still 
don't see an Internet Draft. It's time to fish or cut bait, as they 
say.

pr

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:12:46 -0800 (PST)

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
> would be denied/ is not a correct statement.

I'll try, please tell me what you aren't getting from my statement.

We have historical evidence, in that IETF has already accepted a number
of patent license declarations related to existing standards. The IPR
attorney who examined those declarations for us is Larry Rosen, he posted
his findings here. He tells me that _all_ of the patent declarations have a
royalty requirement, and that none of them would be accessable to Open
Source software. Since we don't charge royalties, we can't pass them on.

So, for the standards in which those patents are embedded, any of the
patent holders may take any developer or distributor of Open Source
software that implements them to court. That patent holder may restrain
further development or distribution, and may levy a fee for patent use
and punitive damages. Thus, we're locked out of those standards.

Why have those patent holders not brought suit yet? They are waiting for
your rules to be cast in concrete. Why would they provide evidence that
works against them in the rule-making?

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:22:33 -0800 (PST)

> close without broad objection from the parties that will feel the effect.

Typo alert. Of course I meant to say "can not".

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:25:16 -0500 (EST)

> of patent license declarations related to existing standards. The IPR

maybe you take a look at the IPR web page

the IETF did *not* "accept" the IPR statements 

they are just published - the IETF makes no judgement about them

if you want to make your point you need to see 
	1/ which of these statements apply to a standards track RFCs
	2/ of those, which statments were made before the standard was
	   approved (hint, there are some)
	3/ of those, which ones are technologies that the open source
	   folk would like to implement
	4/ of those, which ones have the open source folk decided
	   to not implement because of the IPR statement

(I suppose you could cut to the chase, and say (as others have requested)
what *specific* RFCs have the open source folk decided to not implement
because of a IPR statement)

as an exercise, you might also see which of the statements caused
a WG to change what technology went into the final RFC (hint, there are
some)

but taking any meaning out of the fact that the IETF published a IPR letter
that the IETF received shows that you actually do not understand how the
system currently works (hint - it might be a good idea to do that
*before* you suggest major changes)

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:27:32 -0800 (PST)

Pete,

I just spent two years at W3C solving this very problem. At the table
were many of the same folks on this WG, except there they didn't hide
the fact that they were representing their employers. The example of
the W3C policy which just passed last call stands as an example for IETF.
I'm not asking IETF to adopt it unmodified, it's for a differently
structured organization. But it is evidence that there is a problem and
that the problem should be considered further.

I'm not asking to hijack the WG. I'm asking for the WG to start
responding to input.

	Thanks

	Bruce

> Why not do that? Oh, I forgot: Actually doing the legwork

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:32:44 -0500 (EST)

> I'm asking for the WG to start responding to input.

I kinda thought it was responding to imput - the input (from people
who actually know how the current system works and have been working under
it) has been almost unanimous - it would seem quite strange indeed
if the working group should consider your individual input as having
more weight than all of the people who have spoken on the list and in the 
meetings

Scott

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:16:40 -0500

> a policy issue that would legally block us simply isn't their problem.

I think it's pretty clear that the IETF isn't legally
blocking you from doing anything; there may be cases in
which encumbered technology is standardized and there may be
associated license fees.  In my experience that situation is
actually pretty rare.  It would be helpful to me if you could
be more specific about the problems you've encountered.

> I don't have a copy.  The matter currently under discussion is of that

For consensus to really work requires that the participants
be acting in good faith and be willing to work together to
resolve differences and find solutions to common, identified
problems.  So far what you're describing isn't commonly
agreed to be a problem and is only described in nonspecific
terms.  Frankly, threatening to send in an army of cohorts
who otherwise don't participate in the IETF in order to cram
your agenda through and drown out the opinions of people who
do participate doesn't sound very much like good faith
behavior to me.

I think the suggestion that you argue your case in an
internet draft is a very good one, and I hope you follow up
on it.

Melinda

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 14:25:24 +1100

> Source software. Since we don't charge royalties, we can't pass them on.

If this is true, I believe that there is enough reason to recharter,
although perhaps reframing the "recharter question" as initially posed
in this thread so that it is not so black and white. Eg. initially along
the lines of "further research and discussion".

zen

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 14:32:51 +1100

> 	   to not implement because of the IPR statement

OK, so that sounds like there is a clear requirement for further study.
Although perhaps you've already made up your mind?

> *before* you suggest major changes)

Such research will take time. As I mentioned elsewhere, this leads me to
agree with the poster who suggested a rewording of the recharter
question.

There certainly feels to me like there is a push to try to close this
working group by those who have made up their mind, and that creating a
new working group would be met with similar resistance. So I say lets
deal with the issue here rather than play any annoying administrative
game. That _would_ be a waste of people's time.

I believe we should recharter to allow plenty of time for further
research, and presentation and discussion of such, and possible
recommendation for additions and/ or modifications (possibly minor) to
the existing IPR draft.

Or can the current draft be approved as an RFC without closing this wg?
Sorry I don't know the administrative details, I am happy to read up if
someone points me and it's considered necessary.

zen

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:36:47 -0500

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 06:04:59PM -0800, Bruce Perens allegedly wrote:
> As far as our attorney can tell,

Perhaps you should look yourself, then.  He's giving you inaccurate
information.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:39:17 -0500 (EST)

> Although perhaps you've already made up your mind?

no, I do want to know if there is a real problem and I do not know

I do know that there are some IETF standards track RFCs which have
IPR staements posted on them and, at least for some, I expect that
a licemse would be needed (and money change hands) - (I will not say
which because its a personal opinion not a legal one) -  what I do
not know is if there are technologies that the open source folk
would want to implement but they are prevented from doing so

> Or can the current draft be approved as an RFC without closing this wg?

yes - approving the 3 current IDs is not dependent on closing the WG

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:47:07 -0500

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 06:04:59PM -0800, Bruce Perens allegedly wrote:
> This is a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy working to the benefit
> of those who would charge royalties. We must monitor every single
> working group to make sure that we will be able to implement its work.
> We must monitor so often that proprietary technologies don't become

Individuals only need to monitor working groups in which they have an
interest.  Monitoring the entire world "just in case" can indeed be
exhausting.

> > If that results in our standardizing some things that are
> > sufficiently encumbered that the Open Source community decides to
> > not implement them
> 
> Please do not try to make it look as if we would "decide" not to
> implement.  We would have no choice. We would be legally prohibited
> from implementation.  If this was a matter of choice, I would not be
> bending your ear about it.

Of course it's a choice.  

> > no worse (from my perspective) than our not having any standard at
> > all.
> 
> Well, it's sort of like having a neighborhood that colored people are
> not allowed move into. From your perspective, it's no worse than
> having no neighborhood there at all, right? But since we're talking
> about net standards, perhaps it's more like having a phone system in
> the ghetto that is separate from that of the rest of the world, so
> that you just can't call up the people who have more rights than you
> do.
> 

Again, you're talking about your own choices.  I think you should
explain how it's a problem for the entire world, not how your choices
constrain you to your personal enclave.

..swb

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:50:30 -0500

--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2003 18:04 -0800 Bruce Perens 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Excuse me for cutting a lot of your text, but I want to focus
> on this. A strong preference for unencumbered technology is
> _not_ indicated by the patent declarations that IETF has
> already accepted, under the rules that are described in the
> current draft. As far as our attorney can tell, they are all,
> without exception, RAND patent declarations.

Bruce, there are no declarations with unencumbered technology. 
There is nothing to declare.   You might rationally assume that 
every single standard we have out there for which there are no 
statements in the archive is unencumbered, or at least that no 
one participating in the IETF process (and following the rules) 
makes any claims on it.   Since the number of things for which 
statements exist in the archive is small relative to the number 
of published documents that specify protocols or other 
technology,...

Or perhaps you would prefer that we select encumbered 
technologies in the hope that they will generate more 
statements?  :-(

> This is a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy working to the
> benefit of those who would charge royalties. We must monitor
> every single working group to make sure that we will be able
> to implement its work. We must monitor so often that
> proprietary technologies don't become well-embedded in any
> draft.

You (along with the rest of us) must also monitor every single 
WG to be sure that it doesn't produce anything that cannot be 
implemented other than, e.g., on a proprietary platform, or 
implies a prerequisite requirement that the earth be flat, or... 
Such monitoring is what the standards process is all about.

>> sufficiently encumbered that the Open Source community
>> decides to not implement them
>
> Please do not try to make it look as if we would "decide" not
> to implement. We would have no choice. We would be legally
> prohibited from implementation. If this was a matter of
> choice, I would not be bending your ear about it.

Sorry, Bruce.  I don't subscribe to your religion.  I would 
consider it a very sad day if the IETF encountered a particular 
problem and concluded that the only acceptable mechanism for 
solving it involved a technology that would prevent some members 
of the community from implementing or deploying it, and also 
concluded that it should be standardized anyway.  I would 
consider it sad whether the cause was excessive licensing fees, 
or licensing provisions that were onerous or otherwise 
unacceptable to some potential implementers, or if either the 
licenses or the technology itself was illegal in some 
jurisdictions, or for other reasons.  But I'm unconvinced that 
it would be the end of the world, at least without seeing and 
examining each particular case.

We may have to agree to disagree about that, since I am clearly 
not going to convince you.

>> no worse (from my perspective) than our not having any
>> standard  at all.
>
> Well, it's sort of like having a neighborhood that colored
> people are not allowed move into. From your perspective, it's
> no worse than having no neighborhood there at all, right? But
> since we're talking about net standards, perhaps it's more
> like having a phone system in the ghetto that is separate from
> that of the rest of the world, so that you just can't call up
> the people who have more rights than you do.

I don't think this analogy applies and I resent your trying to 
apply it.

> In short, the proposed IPR policy would ghetto-ize us.

And your proposed policy, to the extent that I can deduce what 
you have in mind, would prevent the IETF from even considering a 
standard in an area in which there was a legitimate and 
essential patent for which the inventor wanted to collect some 
fees.  The existing policy _might_ block you from doing an 
implementation.  Your proposed policy (again, as I understand 
it) _would_ prevent IETF from standardizing, and others from 
implementing, the encumbered technology, as well as excluding 
from standardization things for which even the most dubious of 
IPR claims and licensing disclosures exists.  You (apparently) 
consider that tradeoff acceptable, perhaps even morally 
necessary.  But that is, as far as I can tell, a religious 
belief, not inevitable logic.  I, by contrast, prefer to believe 
in the ability of WGs and the IESG to make decisions.  That may 
ultimately be no less a religious belief, but it is one with 
which the IETF has some successful experience.

And, again, the way for your to convince me to the contrary is 
to produce one or more Internet-Drafts that explain exactly what 
you are looking for, justify it, provide precise language, and 
work through enough of the cases that we can all be satisfied 
that you are really solving a real problem.

>> the thing I find most persuasive is our inability to
>> constrain the behavior, however pathological, of people and
>> organizations that do not  participate in the standards
>> process.
>
> We have to use a different mechanism to go after those folks,
> one that IETF can not effect entirely within its own rules.
> But you are asking not to attempt at the more general problem
> because there's a corner case we know we can't cover.

We disagree on whether or not it is a corner case.  We 
unfortunately have worked examples.

> Many of us in this WG seem to be striving toward some sort of
> Platonic absolute of a standard. The Platonic Absolute
> Standard is technically perfect and as efficient as possible -
> which is referred to as "quality" around here. But it has the
> unfortunate feature that only a few can implement it, because
> problems that are outside of the technical domain have been
> insufficiently considered. The reluctance to solve a greater
> problem because of the existence of a pernicious corner case
> is another symptom of this sort of Platonism.

My perception is that you are now moving from the name-calling 
of the "neighborhood that colored people (sic) are not allowed 
to move into" and "ghetto"s to setting up and kicking a strawman 
that no one proposed or advocated.  When you write an I-D, I'll 
try to read it.  Until then, it is my personal opinion that you 
have passed beyond the bounds of reasonable debate.

>> I think it is time for you and your colleagues who feel
>> strongly that we are headed down the wrong path to do some
>> serious writing

> I have a grant proposal in to fund my permanent, intensive
> participation in an IPR WG at IETF. Hopefully, I'll get it, we
> will know soon. But the problem is of such seriousness that I
> sincerely feel that I can allow this window to close without
> broad objection from the parties that will feel the effect.

A grant proposal?  What a nice idea.  Should I assume, from this 
and other comments you have made that you consider open source 
software important enough to write and contribute for free, but 
IETF worthwhile only if you are paid to participate?  I trust 
that, if the grant comes through, you will disclose the funding 
organization and what axes they have to grind in this area.  Or 
you might tell those who are contributing to IETF without 
feeding at either the corporate or funding agency trough where 
to apply for such grants.

      john

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:50:57 -0500 (EST)

> they are all, without exception, RAND patent declarations.

see:
http://www.ietf.org/entrust_instructions.html
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR//CAST-128-entrust
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIP-UNIFY.txt
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/AXERRA-TDM-CIRCUIT-EMULATION.txt
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DoCoMo1.txt

and RFC 1822

for examples (there are quite a few more)

(pesky facts can get in the way of the best arguments :-) )

Scott

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 14:57:42 +1100

> would want to implement but they are prevented from doing so

This raises an interesting thought for me: perhaps, since the existing
IETF standards process may in fact be useful in resulting in "more open"
or even completely RF-implementable where otherwise they might not be,
there should be a policy whereby the "open source/ free software
implementability" status of a standard is

1) intended status is stated at wg formation + announcement
2) variability of that status is stated at wg formation (eg. wg.
will/will not consider changes to status)
3) changes to the status or intented status during the life of a wg are
announced on some list
4) the current status of a draft/ final RFC is clearly included at the
top of said document

This would simplify the task of "diligently monitoring" standards that
may be of use/ interest to the oss/ free software community by making
the implementability status (as far as is known to the wg) opaque.

This might be a possible compromise between "we want to be able to
implement any standard we like" and (from the oss/fs community) "we want
to be able to implement your standards".

thanks
zen

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 15:01:41 +1100

> Perhaps you should look yourself, then.  He's giving you inaccurate

I think he meant the ones he found. But perhaps that's what you also
mean.

However, perhaps the point here is that there is in fact room for
further study. These persistently roundabout conversations seem to me to
be pointing that way.

Can we agree that it would be useful to keep the wg open for further
study and possible recommendation for change of, the IPR policy?

That's what I would recommend.

thanks
zen

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:06:49 -0500

>	a substantially new IPR policy?

No. There was a need for clarification of the existing policy, but I do not
see any need for a substantially new IPR policy. The existing policy seems
to give an appropriate degree of flexibility to working groups, and I have 
not seen any significant problems due to it (both in my role as a working
group chair, and as a developer of open source software).

Colin

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:11:29 -0500

> study and possible recommendation for change of, the IPR policy?

I'm open to the idea, but so far I'm concerned that a rechartered
working group might be knocked around too much by competing interests,
and would thus be a burden rather than a boon.  The exchanges so far
haven't helped me make up my mind :-).  I think Allen Lo's reformulation
of the question is a good step.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 15:10:24 +1100

> interest.  Monitoring the entire world "just in case" can indeed be

Perhaps there are possible IETF policy changes that could significantly
simplify monitoring "the entire (IETF) world". See my post on this
(different thread I think).

> > bending your ear about it.

Is that "you always have a choice about what you do, regardless of
anything" - which would be being obviously pendantic?,

or do you mean that there is a choice for RF implementors to implement
otherwise-encumbered standards?

Are you proposing that RF-implementers (the oss/fs community) simply
ignore non-RF restrictions, patents, etc, and just implement away and
screw the consequences?

zen

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:15:42 -0500

> Of course it's a choice.  

I'm curious why you say this.  Society tries very hard to make that
choice (patent infringement) an unattractive one.  Are you seeking to
minimize the implications of discriminatory patented standards?

 > constrain you to your personal enclave.

Free software is what economists call a nonrivalrous public good.  All
can partake of it without diminishing anyone else's use.  Every
student of public policy (which surely someone who writes standards
should be) recognizes that everyone benefits from a greater amount of
nonrivalrous public goods.  Yes, even patent holders, which is why IBM
is now pushing Linux, and why Motorola put Linux into a recent
cellphone model.

Discriminatory patented standards are a problem for the entire world.
Actually, to a large extent they are the US's problem.  Everybody else
just laughs at the large gunshot wound in our foot.  Still, standards
that are only patented in the US are a problem for everyone because
quite a bit of open source software comes through the US, if not
necessarily from.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:16:42 -0500

> 4) the current status of a draft/ final RFC is clearly included at the

Some of these are already done, or are covered in one of the new drafts.
Deciding the IPR status of a WG's output before it starts concerns me
because it takes away a lot of flexibility.  WGs generally already have
a preference, but not a restriction.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:27 -0500

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 03:10:24PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness allegedly wrote:
> > > implement.  We would have no choice. We would be legally
> > > prohibited from implementation.  If this was a matter of choice, I
> > > would not be bending your ear about it.
> > 
> > Of course it's a choice.  
> 

It's an ideological choice.  No one is going to take away their children
if they don't go that way.  I like the choice, I think it's good for the
planet (everything I ever produced personally was free in some way), but
they are not forced to go that way.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:24:40 -0500

> minimize the implications of discriminatory patented standards?

One other choice is to follow the law.

> quite a bit of open source software comes through the US, if not

Thank you.

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 15:35:10 +1100

> a preference, but not a restriction.  

Is the concern that announcing a preference/intention for non-RF would
then hinder the work of the wg?

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:03:53 -0500

> then hinder the work of the wg?

Well, preference is different from intention.  The WG could express an
ideological preference up front, but doing so may cause trouble later
when they're trying to reach agreement.  I think they should wait until
they are evaluating alternatives and individuals could then decide.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:13:06 -0500

no, we should not recharter.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:18:52 -0500

> I just spent two years at W3C solving this very problem.

no.  you spent two years at w3c getting w3c to change their policy.  
you have no data about whether this change has solved any problem, or 
whether the cure is worse than the disease.  it may not look like such 
a great solution after a few years' hindsight.

forgive us if we do not share your confidence in your solution, or if 
we think that a solution for w3c may not be applicable for IETF.

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:15:34 -0500

Pete Resnick writes:
 > Actually doing the legwork of writing an Internet Draft describing
 > what you think the problem really is and persuading folks so that
 > you get *any* kind of rough consensus to work on this so-called
 > problem is a lot more work than hijacking an already-formed WG.

No, Pete.  This is the problem Bruce anticipates: that the IPR policy,
having been effectively edited by this WG, will be set in stone for
some positive integer number of years.  You can see this from several
people's hums in which they explicitly say "Let's wait and see how the
policy explication pans out."

 > rule or consensus) is that it's really hard to hijack efforts just by 

So, you're saying that, just because I haven't been closely involved
in the IETF, that my fifteen years of contributions to the Internet,
my three RFCs, and my five years as an OSI board member, mean nothing?

 > don't see an Internet Draft. It's time to fish or cut bait, as they 

Let's pick one at random:  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ATT-SIP

That says that anybody who wants to implement those SIP drafts must
get a license from AT&T.  It also says that AT&T is aware that various
IETF drafts incorporate their property.  It also says that AT&T is
actively seeking licensors of their intellectual property.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:19:05 -0800 (PST)

> associated license fees.

Any associated license fees entirely block Open Source software.

> It would be helpful to me if you could be more specific about the problems
> you've encountered.

Well, so far a number of Open Source developers have been informed by the
patent holders that we can not implement without a royalty are
GIF image writing, and public key encryption, both of which concern industry
standards for the most commonly used implementation of their class of
technology, and each which define a reasonably low level of interoperability.
In the case of public key encryption, a free software developer was
enjoined. In the case of GIF, we have a good many demand letters.
Parties that were informed and went ahead with an implementation would have
been liable for pecuniary damages as well as simple ones.

> problems.

I can assure you from the Rambus case, that on the patent side there is
a record of bad faith. The company inserted its technology and then left
the working group at a strategic time that would allow them to avoid the
required disclosure at the last call date.

> Frankly, threatening to send in an army of cohorts

Those people are stake-holders in IETF standards, because they are
historical implementors of IETF standards and we have no reason to
doubt that they are interested in implementing new ones. I still do
not understand why the IETF seems to deny that there _is_ a client.
Those clients, the implementors of the standards, do hold a stake in
the standard and do deserve to be heard.

> internet draft is a very good one, and I hope you follow up

I can see that it would be desirable, but the request also has the
flavor of "go away and work on a document in solitary mode so that you
won't bother us", and seems especially so when we are deciding to close
the WG on a short schedule.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:34:16 -0800 (PST)

> the IETF did *not* "accept" the IPR statements 

It did in a very important way. The publication of those statements on
the IETF site gives the submitter a much stronger case that any implementor
would have reason to know about them, and thus would be liable for punitive
damages as well as simple ones.

> the IETF makes no judgement about them

And that is indeed something I would like to change, to a process similar
to the PAGs in the W3C process.

> 	   approved (hint, there are some)

I'm not sure that what you have asked me to research would capture the entire
magnitude of the problem. The way the declarations are set up, without
contextual information or judgement attached to them, they can apply to any
IETF standard, old or new, including ones you weren't thinking about when you
first saw the declarations. And I'd have the punitive damages problem with any
IETF standard, not just the ones the declarations were meant to apply to.

> 	   folk would like to implement

Please look at opencores.org, which is a site of VLSI hardware designs
under Open Source licensing. I can bring up a number of examples in other
non-software fields, as well. We can no longer confidently state that
the field of use of Open Source is restricted in any way. Thus, the answer
is that we want the option to implement all IETF standards.

> 	   to not implement because of the IPR statement

Previously? It might be none, because attitudes about patents in companies
were different. The Rambus case stands as a very clear warning. There is
nothing special about JEDEC that would not apply to IETF. To deny that the
problem will come up, simply becuase it has not so far, is to ignore
the Rambus case, and all that we have been reading about changes in patent
strategy in the largest companies.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:45:51 +0100

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

No.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 06:52:12 +0100

> study and possible recommendation for change of, the IPR policy?

Keeping the mailing list open could be one alternative; it's fairly common 
to leave mailing lists open after the WG has closed.

Creating a new mailing list for a "design team for documenting the need for 
an alternative and proposing a specific alternative" is another - that 
doesn't need IETF consensus at all; Just Do It.

Having a still-open WG that has no deliverables, no milestones and no 
charter except "further study" is not something that fits with my 
understanding of the IETF process.

             Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:58:51 -0800 (PST)

> they are all, without exception, RAND patent declarations.

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
> Perhaps you should look yourself, then.  He's giving you inaccurate

OK, I have further investigated.

Larry says he looked "until his eyes grew dim" and found only RAND.
I found one RF declaration in my spot-check, from the US Government.
The rest I looked at were either RAND or offers to negotiate a RAND
license that actually fell short of a RAND committment.

Neither Larry's or my search are exhaustive, but I believe both of
us saw a representative sample of the data.

Many of the IPR declarations are blanket declarations from companies,
and apply to all of that company's IPR without disclosing whether the
company holds IPR that applies to a particular standard. The blanket
declarations probably do apply to IPR that those companies have _not_
disclosed, because 1) they haven't searched and the applicable employee
doesn't know and 2) they haven't offered any binding form of consent to
the IETF IPR rules at all. So the bottom line is that there are probably
many more embedded patents in IETF standards under RAND terms than we are
aware of. This would not be the case under the W3C policy, which
places RF terms on IP that is never disclosed.

Were you expecting me to be reassured? Can you tell me why?

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:59:54 -0800 (PST)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
>  You might rationally assume that 
> statements in the archive is unencumbered

Actually, I see no reason to make that assumption. W3C has an RF
committment that they can make stick on undisclosed IP. I see
no enforcible equivalent in IETF. The consent issue is part of this.

> Sorry, Bruce.  I don't subscribe to your religion.

I'm not sure I'm parsing this as you meant it. I'm assuming that you mean
to say you simply don't find it important to accomodate Open Source
in the IPR policy, and that it's OK for us to be blocked on an IPR
issue?

> I don't think this analogy applies and I resent your trying to 

OK, then I apologize. But I think you should consider that I do indeed
feel that there is discrimination against my group, and my feelings about
that discrimination might be just as strong as yours about my metaphor.

> fees.

If there is absolutely no way around that patent, I do not believe that
a standard incorporating it should bear the imprimatur of IETF. This
would not prevent anyone who desires to from working on it - after all,
you're all serving as individuals. How you certify the end result, however,
is important. IETF's current direction threatens to create a perception that
new IETF standards are unsafe to implement - that the liability load attached
to them is just too high.

> IETF worthwhile only if you are paid to participate?

Most of the people here are being paid to participate in IETF - they are
doing it on employer time. At the moment, I am not. I have, however, produced
Open Source software on employer time, and on my own time. Open Source does
not mean wearing a hair shirt, and many or most of us do produce it on
salaried time.

My personal policy is to accept funds, but not control. Anyone who funds me
has agreed to _my_ direction, and to not attempt to influence me. This is
necessary to maintain my integrity as an Open Source leader.

> to apply for such grants.

I could go on for a while about how to get grants, but it's off-topic
here. I have successfully written them for as much as $2.4 Million,
although that was a while ago.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:06:18 -0800 (PST)

> Of course it's a choice.  

Compliance with federal law is not much of a choice. In this case,
a non-compliant person faces loss of all of their assets.

> I think you should explain how it's a problem for the entire world,
> not how your choices constrain you to your personal enclave.

Do you seriously want me to explain why Linux and other Open Source
are important? I would have expected you to take it for granted that
any implementor of IETF standards with as large a user community as
ours is imporant.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:28:28 -0800 (PST)

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DoCoMo1.txt

Scott,

Some of these are not indexed where Larry and I were looking, at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr . The first one restricts field of use to
X.509 version 3 certificate exchange, not stating any derivatives.
The rest appear to be RF grants, although their terms are not necessarily
compatible with real products. For example, the Axterra one requires
each individual user to sign up on their web site. And of course the
vast majority still are RAND.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:59:38 +0200 (EET)

I'll take one issue and expand it a bit..

> not going to convince you.

My belief as a relative IETF newcomer (2+ years) is that an IETF standard 
is actually a big deal; something many vendors value (for whatever 
reasons).

If the belief/assumption above is correct, the licensing policy can 
leverage that.

That is, if vendors having IPR *know* that IETF will not (except in some
very rare cases; I tend to agree that some possibility for judgment call
is probably necessary) accept a standard the required, functional parts of
which include IPR-encumbered technology which is not licensed under
required terms.

As an example, in one current wg., a core protocol has IPR claims.  The
w.g. has made it very clear that such protocol is unacceptable and will
not be worked on unless RF licensing is obtained.  The IPR-claimant has
the choice to either license its IPR RF or have the w.g. adopt a different
approach or have the w.g. cease work altogether.  This is the kind of the 
signal we need to send.

If the belief/assumption above was correct, then such an organization
would indeed license its IPR-encumbered technology under the required
terms -- if it was otherwise blocked from implementing (or claiming
conformance to)  IETF standard altogether.

Of course, if the belief/assumption is not correct, and IETF standards do
not mean anything, one may or may not want to consider what we're doing
here, and whether the issue worked on is relevant to the IETF.

The point is, we *do not* want to get down to the business where everyone
is encouraged to have their companies spend all too much time patenting
their ideas, and bring them in the w.g.'s in hopes of making some money
out of it.  In the current economy, I've resigned myself to accepting
"protective patents", but being able to securely make those RF should be
made as simple as possible.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:15:27 -0500 (EST)

> http://www.ietf.org/ipr

that is where I found all of them

> And of course the vast majority still are RAND.

yes, but the claim was that every single IPR statement was a RAND one
and I wanted to correct that misstatement

Scott

---

From: Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 2003 10:18:54 +0200

> 	a substantially new IPR policy?

Yes.  

Discussion on possible changes to the existing policy was (rightfully)
suppressed because of the narrow scope of the charter.  Deciding not to
recharter now effectively cuts off a useful debate.  It's the sort of
political maneuver you see in organizations that want to cut of
discussion of an uncomfortable topic.

If the current policy is really the best one, then the rechartered
working group can always come to that conclusion after a full debate.

... Ami.

-- 
Ami Ganguli <[email-masked]>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:03:02 -0500

> some positive integer number of years.

whether Bruce likes it or not, that seems to be the consensus of the 
group.
writing a draft might or might not persuade people otherwise, but there 
seems to be emperical evidence that arguing over email will not 
persuade people otherwise.  so writing a draft is about your only 
option.

> my three RFCs, and my five years as an OSI board member, mean nothing?

what you seem to believe is that your experience somehow trumps the 
several hundreds of years of experience, dozens of RFCs, etc. of those 
who take the opposite position.

Keith

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:04:57 -0500

..

> Were you expecting me to be reassured? Can you tell me why?

No, not reassured.  I was reacting to your initial extravagant
statement.  I strongly prefer facts, and I think exaggerations kill
communication.  So do comparisons to slavery, racism, and genocide.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:33:39 -0800 (PST)

> and I think exaggerations kill

Speaking of exaggeration, I made a metaphor comparing discrimination
against my group to racism. I never mentioned slavery or genocide.

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:42:41 -0500

> against my group to racism. I never mentioned slavery or genocide.

That was others, in earlier mail.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:01:53 +0100

Zenaan Harkness wrote:
...
> Since we don't charge royalties, we can't pass them on.

In many cases, royalties are assessed as a percentage of revenue. Since free
software generates no revenue, it incurs no such royalties. I think this might
explain why the free software movement has been able to implement many
standards that may possibly be encumbered. As others have said, it would be
interesting to get a list of standards track RFCs that the free software
community has been unable to implement due to demands for royalties.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:10:21 +0100

> they are evaluating alternatives and individuals could then decide.

It's significantly worse than that. Any such up-front declaration, if it
is binding, automatically chases away from the WG all engineers whose
employers are not willing to accept such a policy up front. And if it
isn't binding, it's pointless.

It's a very, very bad idea for an open participation organization.

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:22:09 +0200 (EET)

> community has been unable to implement due to demands for royalties.

I believe this is still a problem, due to the fundamentally different
model for "vendor".

If I burn a CD with free operating system distribution X and sell it to my 
friend for 5$, do I have to pay 5c to everyone whose non-RF technology is 
included?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:49:08 +0100

Pekka,

What you describe seems to be exactly what the current IETF policy,
with its combination of preferences and flexibility, was designed
to allow.

    Brian

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:20:23 -0500

> It's a very, very bad idea for an open participation organization.

You're assuming that the marketplace doesn't exist (bad assumption).
For one, Cisco doesn't seek royalties from its intellectual property.
I expect that it would be happy to see its competitors representatives
(TANR) locked out of the standards process.  If the price of getting
your technology -- which your engineers devised and which they
understand better than anyone else and for which they already have
optimized implementations -- into a standard is giving up patent
rights, you'll see more engineers than you expect.

Microsoft got where it is without software patents.  IBM got where it
is without software patents.  You can make A LOT OF MONEY without
software patents.  I understand that some people defend them
fiercely.  That's their job, or their wont.  That doesn't mean that
patents and profits are strongly associated.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:52:19 +0200 (EET)

> with its combination of preferences and flexibility, was designed

Your interpretation of what has been happening seems to differ from mine, 

> > which include IPR-encumbered technology which is not licensed under

.. with regard to "very rare".

Actually, in the wg-guidelines document we have an example of a w.g.  
ignoring all (real?) IPR-claims.  I bet this is because w.g. participants
themselves have the IPR and aren't worried about the problem.

There seem to be many other cases similar to this.  I seem to vaguely
remember a case with (IPS?) where some IETF participants had gone,
researched authentication techniques used and boldly patented whatever
seemed to be still "up for grabs", etc.etc.

The policy is maybe similar, but its application is an entirely different
issue.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:04:28 -0500

> themselves have the IPR and aren't worried about the problem.

I regret that word "ignore".  Maybe we can get some CDI people in here.
Anyway, I believe I was told that the principles all had a lot of
experience with each other, and were comfortable that whatever IPR there
might be, licensing terms would not be a big problem.  It wasn't because
they could all swap patents.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:36:17 -0500

> patents and profits are strongly associated.

Do you mean royalties (not patents) throughout this?
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2003 11:30:36 +1100

> they could all swap patents.

So this would presumably be of potential concern to oss/fs
implementations (coming along after the standard has been approved).

Good example.

zen

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:24:50 +0100

--On torsdag, mars 27, 2003 19:22:09 +0200 Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>> In many cases, royalties are assessed as a percentage of revenue. Since
>> free software generates no revenue, it incurs no such royalties. I think
>> this might explain why the free software movement has been able to
>> implement many standards that may possibly be encumbered. As others have
>> said, it would be interesting to get a list of standards track RFCs that
>> the free software community has been unable to implement due to demands
>> for royalties.
>
> If I burn a CD with free operating system distribution X and sell it to
> my  friend for 5$, do I have to pay 5c to everyone whose non-RF
> technology is  included?

Note: This is NOT an IETF standard, so it's of tangential interest, but 
seems to indicate that at least one company thought the answer was YES:

In August 2002, the Fraunhofer Institute announced that it would seek 
licensing fees of US$ 0.75 for software MP3 decoders.

Red Hat responded by pulling all MP3 decoding support from its freely 
available Linux distribution. There are still tons of opensource software 
out there on the Net for MP3 decoding, but I don't know if it has been put 
back into Red Hat's distribution.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Aug/gee20020829016109.htm

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:53:34 +0100

And that's a pretty good example of a self-defeating licensing
policy, but my statement was about the more normal practice
of royalties based on a percentage of revenue.

   Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:49:37 -0500

No, the IPR working group should not recharter at this time to devise a 
substantially new IPR policy.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:52:07 -0800

Yes.

/Larry Rosen
General counsel, Open Source Initiative

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:09:10 -0800

> a substantially new IPR policy?

nope

randy

---

From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:07:37 -0500 (EST)

There is a large amount of international trade related activity right now
on IPR issues, including dozens of US bilateral and regional trade
agreements, the WIPO SPLT treaty, and other relevant measures.  Does this
working group play any role in explaining to its members or government
negotiators what are the consequences of these treaties for the
development of new Internet standards?

Jamie

-- 
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
mobile +1.202.361.3040