Subject: Rechartering to focus on problem

From: "Allen Lo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:06:16 -0800

Based on the various comments, the question of whether to re-charter the WG appears to mean different things to different people.  Some interpret the question as having a conclusory meaning:  "should we change the IPR policy."  Under that interpretation, a decision to re-charter represents a decision to depart from the existing IPR policy.  Others interpret the question as having a very specific meaning:  "should we adopt a royalty-free policy."  
 
These are important questions that address possible solutions, but I believe misses a more fundamental, threshold question (which was raised at the SF meeting):  what is the problem?  We can't reach consensus on a solution until we've been able to get our arms around the problem (if one or more exist).  But once one or more problems are identified, the WG can consider the appropriate changes to solve those problems without disrupting the standards process. 
 
With this in mind, I propose that the WG consider re-chartering to investigate (and document) what IPR problems have been experienced within the IETF, what is the extent of those problems, how are they currently handled, and (as appropriate) make changes to the existing IPR policy.  A task force could gather information from various sources (e.g., current and former WG chairs, companies who implement protocols, etc.) and report back to the WG.  If this WG closes without performing the investigation, a valuable opportunity to improve the process (or confirm that the current process is without problems) will have been missed.  
 
As I mentioned at the SF meeting, I see two problems:  (1) non-contributors who disrupt the standards process by making IPR claims while a WG is developing a protocol; and (2) the inadequacy of RAND.  Most would probably acknowledge the existence of the first problem (and many may even have first hand experience), but may not appreciate the significance of the RAND problem.  
 
The RAND problem may be less visible to the IETF, but creates a real problem with vendors implementing the protocols (which is something that the IETF presumably cares about).  The adequcy (or inadequacy) of RAND has been a hot topic of discussion recently within standards bodies as well as other organizations, especially as the number of patent infringement lawsuits involving standards has increased.  The FTC held a hearing last year to discuss the anticompetitive effectves of RAND.  For those interested, the written submissions and the hearing transcript can be found at (you may need to scroll down to April 18):  
 
 <http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#April%2018> http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#April%2018:
 
Discussions that advocate or reject a particular solution at this point seems premature until we better understand the problem(s).

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:39:24 -0500

Allen Lo writes:
 > Based on the various comments, the question of whether to
 > re-charter the WG appears to mean different things to different
 > people.

I interpret the decision as: should we *talk about* adopting a
royalty-free policy.  You can understand why, given that
intepretation, I am aghast at a decision not to re-charter.  I mean,
c'mon, geez[1], if you don't want to talk about it, finish the
documents, and leave the working group to those of us who do.

[1] Sorry, that's the best Radar O'Reilly imitation I can muster.

 > what is the problem?

I think Larry Rosen laid it out perfectly fine in his message of 7 Mar
2003 23:05.  His point being, that software patents change
everything in the standards business.

-- 
-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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:42:46 -0500

if we recharter ipr it should be with the constraint that the 
rechartered group cannot make structural changes to IETF, and in 
particular it cannot change the rule that individuals participate on 
their own behalf.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:07:30 -0800 (PST)

I was in the Apps Open Area meeting opposite IPR, so was able to
see the END of the IPR meeting, but didn't feel competent to
comment on the hum without someone else going first.

I agree with Allen that it's certainly POSSIBLE that different
people understood the question being asked as the hum in
different ways. The question, as I heard it, was "should we
recharter?" with no explicit purpose for rechartering as part of
the question.

I heard the question as "should we attempt to change the IPR
policy, or is the current situation at least a local maxima?",
but I've been following the working group since it was a BoF...

At the very least, I'm not sure that the working group is
(subject to confirmation on the list) opposed to the type of
investigation Allen proposed, based on the hum taken this
week...

Spencer

--- Allen Lo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> re-charter the WG appears to mean different things to
> different people.  Some interpret the question as having a
> conclusory meaning:  "should we change the IPR policy."  Under
> that interpretation, a decision to re-charter represents a
> decision to depart from the existing IPR policy.  Others
> interpret the question as having a very specific meaning: 
> "should we adopt a royalty-free policy."  
>  
> These are important questions that address possible solutions,
> but I believe misses a more fundamental, threshold question
> (which was raised at the SF meeting):  what is the problem? 
> We can't reach consensus on a solution until we've been able
> to get our arms around the problem (if one or more exist). 
> But once one or more problems are identified, the WG can
> consider the appropriate changes to solve those problems
> without disrupting the standards process. 
>  
> With this in mind, I propose that the WG consider
> re-chartering to investigate (and document) what IPR problems
> have been experienced within the IETF, what is the extent of
> those problems, how are they currently handled, and (as
> appropriate) make changes to the existing IPR policy.  A task
> force could gather information from various sources (e.g.,
> current and former WG chairs, companies who implement
> protocols, etc.) and report back to the WG.  If this WG closes
> without performing the investigation, a valuable opportunity
> to improve the process (or confirm that the current process is
> without problems) will have been missed.  
>  
> As I mentioned at the SF meeting, I see two problems:  (1)
> non-contributors who disrupt the standards process by making
> IPR claims while a WG is developing a protocol; and (2) the
> inadequacy of RAND.  Most would probably acknowledge the
> existence of the first problem (and many may even have first
> hand experience), but may not appreciate the significance of
> the RAND problem.  
>  
> The RAND problem may be less visible to the IETF, but creates
> a real problem with vendors implementing the protocols (which
> is something that the IETF presumably cares about).  The
> adequcy (or inadequacy) of RAND has been a hot topic of
> discussion recently within standards bodies as well as other
> organizations, especially as the number of patent infringement
> lawsuits involving standards has increased.  The FTC held a
> hearing last year to discuss the anticompetitive effectves of
> RAND.  For those interested, the written submissions and the
> hearing transcript can be found at (you may need to scroll
> down to April 18):  
>  
> 
>
<http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#April%2018>
http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/detailsandparticipants.htm#April%2018:
>  
> Discussions that advocate or reject a particular solution at
> this point seems premature until we better understand the
> problem(s).  
> 

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:31:59 -0800

> recharter?" with no explicit purpose for rechartering as part of

I think most of the different purposes a rechartering could have (minimal 
fixes to current policy, consider alternatives for a new policy, explicitly 
charter for switching to a RF policy) were covered in the discussion; what 
the exact charter would be would of course be a matter of a great deal of 
discussion before an actual recharter could take place.

I interpreted the response in the room as rejecting *all* of these 
alternative purposes for rechartering - that we should take the IPR policy 
as clarified and run with it, and not attempt to change it further at this 
time.

> investigation Allen proposed, based on the hum taken this

The most common tradition for WGs is that the mailing list stays open after 
the WG closes, among other things so that discussions related to 
experiences with the implementation of the stuff specified can be held 
there.

But there's no milestones or chairs any more - nobody has been charged by 
the IETF as *responsible* for doing anything.

                Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:30:35 +0100

> as clarified and run with it, and not attempt to change it further at this

I heard that too, but we should wait for the minutes to be sure.

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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:55:32 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Rechartering to focus on problem

> that needs fixing. [I heard that statement because I made it, but

This person did not agree. Speak for yourself. Or Speak for IBM. Don't
speak for me.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:41:57 -0500

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 06:06:16PM -0800, Allen Lo allegedly wrote:
> With this in mind, I propose that the WG consider re-chartering to
> investigate (and document) what IPR problems have been experienced
> within the IETF, what is the extent of those problems, how are they
> currently handled, and (as appropriate) make changes to the existing
> IPR policy.  

Nicely phrased.  The main problem seems to have been confusion with the
policy, and the effort we have been going through has been an attempt to
fix that problem.  

Based on your idea we could re-charter to clarify other problems we
*know* will occur *even if* confusion about the current policy is
clarified, or based on the understanding of those clarifications that
has already emerged.  Your two below would fit in that category.

> non-contributors who disrupt the standards process by making IPR
> claims while a WG is developing a protocol; and (2) the inadequacy of
> RAND.

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:36:33 -0500

Scott W Brim writes:
 > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 09:39:24PM -0500, Russell Nelson allegedly wrote:
 > > royalty-free policy.  
 > More specifically, you would want to document any problems the Internet
 > has experienced from not having such a policy.  What technologies could
 > the IETF have adopted that it has not, and vice versa, and what are the
 > long term results.  

That's reactive policy making.  I think it would be better to be
proactive, before the RAMBUS hits the fan.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:44:43 -0500

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:50:02 +0100

minor clarification below...

> that needs fixing. [I heard that statement because I made it, but

"people" was not intended to mean "everybody". If I had meant
"everybody", that's what I would have written.
    Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:29 -0500

> proactive, before the RAMBUS hits the fan.

First, if you think we're still vulnerable to that kind of attack, we
haven't finished the current charter's work.

Second, if you want to be proactive, what are you going to use to guide
your actions?  There must be some problem you've seen in the IETF that
motivates you to want to be proactive.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:12:08 -0500

> haven't finished the current charter's work.

I'm sorry, but I must be confused.  I thought this WG's charter was to
write down existing policy, so that everybody understands what the
policy is, and executes it the same way across multiple WGs.  If
there's a problem with current policy, there's *still* a problem,
since this group is explicitly not chartered to change policy.

 > motivates you to want to be proactive.

Yes, for one, there's no rejection of any patent licensing scheme no
matter how onerous.  For another, there's this fantasy that an
employee whose expected work product includes IETF standards is not
representing their employer.

If, for example, a UTK professor invents something, and UTK has the
same patent policy that so many universities have, and UTK ends up
owning the patent, and that patent ends up in a standard that Keith
Moore opined on, and UTK tries to extract royalties from standards
implementors, and I write a run-on sentence, then you can BET that
said implementor's lawyer is going to argue that UTK gave an implicit
license for that standard by virtue of Keith's participation.

That's reality as I understand it.  I'm not trying to make anybody
unhappy, or break a tradition of individual participation, but
anything that's not based in reality is likely to cause trouble at the
reality/fantasy interface.  Why borrow trouble?

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:36:28 -0500

> since this group is explicitly not chartered to change policy.

Postponing this one ...

> matter how onerous.  

How has that caused you or your WG problems?  That's what I was trying
to get at.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:49:37 -0800

**************************Alan Lo wrote: 
With this in mind, I propose that the WG consider re-chartering to
investigate (and document) what IPR problems have been experienced
within the IETF, what is the extent of those problems, how are they
currently handled, and (as appropriate) make changes to the existing IPR
policy.  A task force could gather information from various sources
(e.g., current and former WG chairs, companies who implement protocols,
etc.) and report back to the WG.  If this WG closes without performing
the investigation, a valuable opportunity to improve the process (or
confirm that the current process is without problems) will have been
missed.   

**************************Lawrence Rosen responds:
I agree with Alan Lo.

For one picture of the "extent of those problems" I refer you to the
Rambus case.  The following are two additional pieces of data to
integrate.  What is it that is unique about IETF that would let it avoid
such problems while other standards organizations have to deal with
them?

From the Overview and Summary of the W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy
dated 3/19/2003
(http://www.w3.org/2003/03/19-patentsummary.html)
"In the early years of W3C's work on Web standards, innovation arose out
of a combination of community-wide collaboration on open standards and
fierce competition in implementation of those standards. Patents were
not initially identified as a barrier to innovation or interoperability
because no one was aware of any patent claims asserted to block
standards-based interoperability. However, as the Web become more
commercially prominent and the number of software and business process
patents increased, some patent holders sought to require license
payments as a condition of implementing Web standards. In some cases,
these patent holders had also participated in the development of those
standards. The W3C community came to the conclusion that it is essential
to have a clear patent policy governing standards development to assure
that the fundamental dynamics of innovation and interoperability that
made the Web successful would be able to continue."

***********************************
From the W3C press release of 3/19/2003
(http://www.w3.org/2003/03/patentpolicy-pressrelease.html.en)
"The W3C Patent Policy Working Group was launched in October 1999, after
a patent claim against P3P derailed the development of that technology.
Based on a legal analysis of the claim
(http://www.w3.org/1999/10/28-P3P-IntermindPatentAnalysis-PressRelease.h
tml), the threat was removed, and work successfully resumed. This and
other experiences raised awareness of patent issues in the W3C
Membership. The Working Group was created in part to make more concrete
how W3C Working Groups could successfully work on Web standards in the
evolving patent climate."

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Mar 2003 21:35:45 +1100

> as clarified and run with it, and not attempt to change it further at this 

I hope that interpretation is not definative.

zen

-- 
Mr Zenaan Harkness, Manager, VIDC
Phone: +678 25 151  Fax: +678 25 178  Mobile: +678 45 179
Please respect the confidentiality of this email.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:16:36 -0800

--On 20. mars 2003 21:35 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> alternative purposes for rechartering - that we should take the IPR
>> policy  as clarified and run with it, and not attempt to change it
>> further at this  time.
>

Consensus is the chairs' call.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:32:50 -0500

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 10:49:37PM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen allegedly wrote:
> Rambus case.  

The Rambus case involved poorly worded policies, which allowed a company
to exploit loopholes.  The IETF *policy* is clear, and what we've been
working on is the wording, leading to the two new drafts.

Therefore, if you're saying the Rambus case represents a problem that
can only be solved through rechartering, I believe you are wrong.  If
you think we are still vulnerable to attacks of that sort, then the
current working group has not finished its work.