Subject: We won't recharter

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:56:36 -0400

After the in-person hum in San Francisco and the email hum conducted
during the last two weeks, it's clear that there is no consensus
to recharter to change the IETF's IPR policy.  In fact, there is
likely consensus the other way, that we should not recharter at
this time.  Accordingly, the working group will finish up the three
documents called for by the current charter, and seek to terminate
after they have been approved by the IESG.

That doesn't mean that the IPR issue is dead.  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.  It probably won't be a working group, since it isn't
clear what the charter or the deliverables would be.  At the same
time, simply asking people to write I-Ds on their own wouldn't be
fair to them, since it's not clear where such I-Ds would be discussed.
Harald, Rob, and I are discussing the question; we welcome suggestions.
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.

		--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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 01:07:52 -0400

> Harald, Rob, and I are discussing the question; we welcome suggestions.

My suggestion is to establish a new mailing list, after this group is closed,
for discussion of ipr problems within IETF.  It would not be a working
group and would not have license to work on any changes to IPR policy
(so that those who think things are fine as they are would not have to
participate in that group for damage control purposes).  But the list could
serve as a place to discuss IPR problems experienced by WGs and with published
IETF standards, and more generally to collect and summarize the experience
with the clarified IPR policy.

As for drafts, individuals could still submit individual I-Ds and request that
they be discussed on that list.

Maybe the list could be called 'not-ipr-wg' :)

Keith