Subject: CNET: Standards group beats back patent foes

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:17:54 +0200

This has to be considered an unofficial comment, since the comment period has 
apparently expired, along with the mandate of the working group.

My question: why is it, that the first I ever hear about this working group, 
is that the public comment period has expired?  I'd like to suggest that very 
little attempt, if any, was made to ensure that the internet-using public was 
made properly aware that there was a comment period, or indeed, that there 
was a question of interest, requiring comment.

This email is strongly worded, only because I think that some IETF members 
have managed to convince themselves that silence on the part of the public 
constitutes tacit support for the status quo.  I can assure you that that is 
not the case.  If the public has not made its voice adequately heard, I am 
sure that is only because the public did not know the discussion was taking 
place.  The issue is simple indeed: currently, the IETF blesses the practice 
of patented internet standards.  Why should this be any more palatable to the 
public for the IETF than for the W3C?

I first heard about this working group here:

   http://news.com.com/2100-1013-996351.html?tag=fd_top

According to CNET, Steve Bellovin said: 

  "That doesn't mean that the IPR issue is dead," Bellovin wrote. "There are 
  a lot of people who remain concerned about it, often with good reason. What 
  isn't clear is what structure should be created for the ongoing 
  discussion...The only option that is effectively ruled out at this time is 
  a new working group specifically chartered to change the current IPR 
  policy; that issue has to be considered settled for the time being."

How did Steve conclude that a new working group is ruled out?  A quick review 
of the "Final repost" thread in the list archives shows that, far from it, 
not even the question of whether to recharter the existing working group was 
settled conclusively.  The question of whether to form a new working group 
was not addressed at all.  Steve's inaccurate conclusion went on to be 
reported by the press.  My conclusion: something in the review process is 
broken.

I would ask the esteemable IETF members present on this list not to labor 
further under the misapprehesion that the internet-using public is 
unconcerned about the status quo of the IETF's patent policy.  You need look 
no further than last year's public strong opposition to W3C's attempt to 
adopt a similar policy, to know that the public does not want it.

Call me an armchair statistician if you like, but I could not help noticing a 
preponderance of corporate email addresses amongst the "no" votes.  I will 
venture to suggest that the results would have been quite different if the 
general public had had any idea that this discussion was even taking place.

In my mind, there is no real question about whether further discussion is 
needed, but only what form it will take.  I did not see any argument 
presented about why a new working group, properly chartered, is not needed to 
address this issue, much less why the creation of such a working group has 
already been foreclosed.

Regards,

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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:12:43 -0400

>was a question of interest, requiring comment.

I don't know -- why didn't you hear about it?  It's been an IETF 
working group since July; there were meetings in Yokohama, Atlanta, 
and San Francisco.  It's been covered in the trade press, too; see, for 
example, http://news.com.com/2100-1023-948206.html which I found by 
searching for "ipr ietf" on CNET's web site.  That article is dated 
August 2.

Nor has the group been hidden from the open source community.  A number 
of prominent members of the group, including Bruce Perens, Russ Nelson, 
Eric Raymond, and Richard Stallman posted to the list.  I'd say that 
your accusations of a conspiracy of silence are seriously off-base.
>reported by the press.  My conclusion: something in the review process is 

As for why -- I posted a note that gave my rationale on March 28.  I 
quoted Harald Alvestrand's earlier post:

   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.

My note went on to say:

That doesn't mean the IETF can't do something else to address the further 
question.  In fact, Harald, Rob, and I are discussing how best to 
accomplish that.  I don't think that anyone, on either (or any) side of 
the patent question, thinks that we've made much progress towards 
harmony (with the notable exception of the text in Section 8 of 
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights that explicitly notes the historic
preference of IETF working groups for unencumbered technologies).
Would a simple debating forum be useful?  I personally don't think so -- 
it just serves to harden positions.

So -- I would welcome constructive suggestions on what sort of 
structure might actually accomplish something.

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

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 01:18:47 +0200

On Fri 11 Apr 03 00:12, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> >My question: why is it, that the first I ever hear about this working
> > group, is that the public comment period has expired?  I'd like to
> > suggest that very little attempt, if any, was made to ensure that the
> > internet-using public was made properly aware that there was a comment
> > period, or indeed, that there was a question of interest, requiring
> > comment.
>

Oh yes, once I knew the jargon I found it easily.  The problem is, I didn't 
hear much about this effort in the first place.  It just hasn't been 
publicized.  I can well understand that little of IETF's work would require 
any special effort to publicize, since those who are interested are generally 
already in the loop, but the matter of patented internet standards is 
different.

> your accusations of a conspiracy of silence are seriously off-base.

Your accusation re my accusation is off-base, since there was no accusation 
of a conspiracy.  There was, however, an observation that there was no effort 
to publicize the process, and this appears to be quite accurate.  

Look, this is publicity:

  "Standards group beats back patent foes"

So where was the:

  "Standards group invites comment from the public on patent policy"

?

> >How did Steve conclude that a new working group is ruled out?  A quick
> > review of the "Final repost" thread in the list archives shows that, far
> > from it, not even the question of whether to recharter the existing
> > working group was settled conclusively.  The question of whether to form
> > a new working group was not addressed at all.  Steve's inaccurate
> > conclusion went on to be reported by the press.  My conclusion: something
> > in the review process is broken.
>

This doesn't address your claim that "the only option that is effectively 
ruled out at this time is a new working group specifically chartered to 
change the current IPR policy".  Why is this option ruled out?

For that matter, what is the problem with further debate?  Yes, it can get 
noisy and repetitive, but the reason for that is obvious: the public wants 
one thing while some of the more active IETF members want another.  Something 
has to give, and it is only natural that some noise will be involved.

From the way it was presented to the news media, it would seem as though the 
issue is settled.  Far from it, I'd say.

> structure might actually accomplish something.

Ahem, yes, excuse me. :-)

Henceforce I will proceed with a less strident demeanor.  Perhaps it's fair 
to say that it's premature to charter a working group specifically to change 
the IPR policy.  On the other hand, why cannot a new working group be 
chartered to study which changes are required, if any, to IPR policy?  The 
subtle but important distinction is that such a charter does not make an a 
priori assumption that anything needs to be changed.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:33:13 -0400

Daniel,

I recommend re-reading the IPR WG charter.  It pretty much spells out
the process we have been following, including the form of the question
we just finished answering (Q: Is there consensus in this WG to seek
to recharter to work on a new IETF IPR policy?  A: No.).

You appear to believe that the IETF should have been actively seeking
publicity for its attempt to clarify its existing IPR policies, and
actively soliciting comments from people who would not otherwise pay
attention to what we were doing.  If so, why?  Serious question.

As far as further debate goes: I don't think anybody's saying that
people who want to discuss the issues should cease doing so (I dunno
about "debate", that's more of a collegiate sport than a technique for
building consensus).  But a discussion doesn't necessarily require the
resources and structure of a WG (a charter, one or more chairs, a
responsible AD, a list of deliverables, and a list of milestones).
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 03:10:01 +0200

> to recharter to work on a new IETF IPR policy?  A: No.).

But you also just finished answering this question: Q: Is there consensus in 
this WG that the WG should not be rechartered to work on a new IETF IPR 
policy?  A: No.

In fact, no consensus was reached either way and the only possible conclusion 
is that the issue remains open.  The remaining question is: by which means is 
it to proceed further?

> attention to what we were doing.  If so, why?  Serious question.

Yes, I do believe that the IETF should have issued a press release at the 
outset in this case, since it's clearly an issue of interest to the general 
internet-using public, quite easy to understand and quite distinct from the 
usual technical fare.

> responsible AD, a list of deliverables, and a list of milestones).

Some kind of forum is needed.  In the case of the W3C, the relevant 
discussion (or outpouring, if you like) took place on the list that had been 
provided for comment on the initial proposal.  Most of that took place after 
the close of the comment period, once the general public became aware of the 
importance of the issues involved.  As a direct result of that public debate, 
a new working group was formed to re-examine the proposed patent policy, and 
ammend it to be more in line with wishes expressed by the public.

The same process would work here: just let the word get out about the 
apparent closure of debate (real or imagined) and keep the mailing list open. 
After the general public has a chance to express its wishes clearly, then 
form a working group to implement them.  The one thing that won't work is to 
attempt to hold to the status quo: the world is changing, or at least, this 
little part of it is.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 03:36:39 +0200

On Fri 11 Apr 03 03:06, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 11:33, Rob Austein wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> Daniel, I have to disagree.

I believe you meant "Rob, I have to disagree".

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:10 -0400

> apparent closure of debate (real or imagined) and keep the mailing list
> open. After the general public has a chance to express its wishes clearly,
> then form a working group to implement them.  

I never cease to be amazed by those who think that nonparticipants have the
right to impose their whims on the people who actually do the work.

At any rate, you are mistaken.  There was an overwhelming consensus in favor
of shutting down the group.

I wouldn't mind if the mailing list were kept open, except for two things:

1) the list address ends in "[email-masked]" which would give the false
impression that the list was associated with an IETF working group

2) the set of those who are interested in discussing IPR issues indefinitely
isn't the same as the set of people who signed up for this list.

so it's better to start a new list for this purpose.

Keith

---

From: Zenaan Harkness <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Apr 2003 12:06:00 +1100

> to recharter to work on a new IETF IPR policy?  A: No.).

Daniel, I have to disagree. The subtle (or not so to some of us, since
we keep getting it wiped in our paths) distinction is being used to
either curtail, or at least remove from the auspices of the IETF,
further debate on the IPR issue.

Perhaps that is an appropriate course of action. Perhaps that is simply
to "get it out of the hair" of those in IETF who would rather not
continuing to debate it. The question of whether IETF should continue
such debate has not been answered, _outside the current IPR WG charter
wording_! And that is frustrating for some of us.

The IPR WG charter does not _preclude_ a new WG. But some in this WG
seem to implying so. That is for the (ongoingly debated) reason that
(those who push this point of view) want to see the existing
"clarification documents" circulate in use for a year or two. There are
those of us who don't consider this an appropriate course of action for
the IETF.

> attention to what we were doing.  If so, why?  Serious question.

I would posit that IPR related court cases (not directly IETF, but ones
such as the patent farming of Rambus, the incarceration of Sklyarov,
etc) have simply raised the ire of much of our community, and therefore
a feeling that something needs to be done to correct these (obvious in
our eyes) injustices. Proactively. Not sitting around waiting for
existing practice to show us that things need to be improved.

At least that's my perception of things.

Whatever the case, like it or not, the community's awareness has been
raised on IPR issues, and will continue to desire changes to support and
maintain that community. Something I personally support, if it weren't
obvious. And note well: the community sees the IETF as one of "its"
bodies (rightly or wrongly) (again, in my perception). And if the
community feels betrayed, or let down, by "its own", there will be an
outcry, and attempts to "correct" that.

> responsible AD, a list of deliverables, and a list of milestones).

Well, that's the question here I guess.

cheers
zen

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:59 -0400

> internet-using public, quite easy to understand and quite distinct from the 

It's not, actually.  You really need to understand that the
specific problem being addressed is that the existing IPR
policy needed to be more clearly articulated for technical
working groups.  This working group was chartered to solve
that problem, and that problem has no relevance whatsoever
to people who are not doing technical work within the IETF.

One specific thing that the "open source" community could do
that would be of tremendous help to some of the working
groups I've been involved with would be to submit
unencumbered protocols for consideration in working groups
where they're otherwise unavailable.  That would have
considerable practical value.  So would submitting an
internet draft presenting the case for why you think
existing IPR policy needs to change.  That's the way the
IETF works.

Melinda

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:14:15 -0400

> is that the issue remains open.  The remaining question is: by which means is 

The situation isn't symmetrical, because we already have an IPR policy
in place as the result of a consensus decision made years ago.
Changing that existing policy requires consensus.

As Steve and I have both stated, it's pretty clear that discussion and
thinking about IPR issues needs to continue in some form.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:21 -0700 (PDT)

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> right to impose their whims on the people who actually do the work.

You can assume that just about anyone is a stake-holder where IETF standards
are concerned. Everybody who makes use of the Internet is effected by
your work, and they didn't necessarily invite you to do it. At the very least,
they have a right to comment. 

	Thanks

	Bruce

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:28:17 +0200

--On fredag, april 11, 2003 03:10:01 +0200 Daniel Phillips 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> outset in this case, since it's clearly an issue of interest to the
> general  internet-using public, quite easy to understand and quite
> distinct from the  usual technical fare.

just as a point of interest:

as far as I can remember, the IETF has never, ever, issued a press release.

                        Harald

---

From: Daniel Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:23:15 +0200

On Fri 11 Apr 03 09:28, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On fredag, april 11, 2003 03:10:01 +0200 Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > ...I do believe that the IETF should have issued a press release at the

Fair comment.  You might wish to call it a "leak" as opposed to a "release", 
but whatever the means of delivery, the effect should be similar to this:

It is disconcerting when the press reports only the closure of a comment 
period, not the opening.

Regards,

Daniel

---

From: D F <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:41:29 -0400

On April 10, 2003 22:38, Keith Moore wrote:
> I never cease to be amazed by those who think that
> nonparticipants have the right to impose their whims on the
> people who actually do the work.

I never cease to be amazed by those who think that the users and 
implementers of a technology have no right to attempt to influence 
what that technology will look like.

After all, if you're one of those "who actually do the work," I 
presume you're doing that work to see it implemented and used. So, 
without the users and implementers, all of that work is pretty much 
mental masturbation, isn't it?

- -- 
Dave Fluri
PGP Public Key-ID 3F64B9AC

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:37:54 -0400

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
[email-masked] (Bruce Perens) wrote:

> > I never cease to be amazed by those who think that nonparticipants have
> > the right to impose their whims on the people who actually do the work.
> 
> are concerned.

And in fact, anybody has the right to participate in IETF discussions. Bbut
they need to know what they're talking about.  Some of the recent
contributions remind me of the folks who are now insisting that the space
shuttle have ejection seats that work at 20 miles altitude and Mach 18.

I agree that all Internet users are stakeholders.  Maybe we need to find a way
to let them provide the right level of input.  It's one thing to say "we want
our privacy to be protected", quite another to specify how to do this and how
to trade off security against some other useful properties.   It requires a
different level of expertise and a different degree of investment to usefully
contribute to the latter kind of discussion. 

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:50:33 -0400

> what that technology will look like.

I don't know anyone who thinks that.  But if you want to try to specify
details, you'd better be prepared to understand the effect of doing so.

Keith

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:23:54 -0700 (PDT)

... but, isn't the gripe with the press coverage?

Spencer, who's still trying to figure out what the title of the
article, reflected in the thread subject here, has to do with
what has actually happened in IPR-WG, which had little or
nothing to do with "beating back" anything except the desire to
do non-chartered work at the expense of chartered work...

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
> ... but, isn't the gripe with the press coverage?

Paul Festa of CNET News.com corresponded with Steve Bellovin and
myself. He's generally competent in reporting this stuff.

	Bruce

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:39:53 -0400

> Oh yes, once I knew the jargon I found it easily.  The problem is, I
> didn't hear much about this effort in the first place.  It just hasn't
> been publicized.  I can well understand that little of IETF's work would
> require any special effort to publicize, since those who are interested
> are generally already in the loop, but the matter of patented internet
> standards is different.

no it isn't.  it's just the little corner of the universe that you
think is special.  we all think our little corners of the universe
are special, and none of them really are.

randy

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:55:31 +0200

--On fredag, april 11, 2003 15:23:15 +0200 Daniel Phillips 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Fair comment.  You might wish to call it a "leak" as opposed to a
> "release",  but whatever the means of delivery, the effect should be
> similar to this:
>

(digression)
in other lives, I've actually worked with organizations where press 
releases were a part of our duties.

Not a pleasant duty, because I learned:

- The press will NEVER pick up the press release you find interesting.

- The press will NEVER read the whole press release before publishing their 
"creative" interpretation of the first 3 paragraphs.

- The press will NEVER contact you for clarification to check that they 
understood you correctly.

- The press will ALWAYS publish what looks like controversy, even if you 
want to draw attention to harmony.

Like all generalizations, these are false, of course. Some press people 
want to understand the technology and environment they report on. But those 
press people are not reading your press releases; they'll call you or email 
you when they hear about a controversy they want to cover.

My conclusion was that press releases are mostly useless. You can't force 
the press to write anything, so you might as well concentrate on making the 
information available to those who come looking for it themselves.

BTW, I was corrected; ISOC has sent out a few press releases about IETF 
matters over the course of the IETF's lifetime with ISOC; for instance, the 
decision on what IPv6 looked like and the publication of RFC 1984, "banning 
crypto is harmful", were accompanied by press releases.

But, because of the above experiences, I haven't even *thought* about the 
idea of using press releases to publish the IETF's work - not even in the 
IPR arena.

                   Harald

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:13:56 -0400

>myself. He's generally competent in reporting this stuff.

Agreed.  It's worth noting that CNET ran at least 4 articlse on the 
topic, going back to last August.  Whatever else you think of the 
effort or its outcome, it was not hidden.