Subject: Question for the IETF... How are people supposed to verify the IETF's assumptions?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:37:29 -0800

Since Harald has already threatened  me with suspension for offtopic 
postings in regard to these matters in the IPR-WG, the only other place I 
can post this is to the IETF at IETF dot ORG list...

---

Question... The question simply is that IETF's "IP Reliance Processes" 
clearly state "that it is the responsibility of the relying party to verify 
the IPR issues pertaining to any use of an IETF-IP or 'Work Product' from 
any IETF Vetting Effort". That also clearly includes any and all 
participation in the IETF itself including that of the WG and Meeting under 
the Note-Well IP conveyance rules as part of that "Work Product"...  So let 
me ask - how is that supposed to happen? How is diligence supposed to happen 
here?

This is a VERY important question since the current language makes it the 
responsibility of the relying parties to also protect themselves from any 
and all liabilities with regard to participating in the IETF and without a 
formal release from all the other parties in a WG there seems to be an issue 
here.

Any thoughts (other than trying to stop me from asking these types of 
questions?)

Todd Glassey

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:23:20 -0800

Ted called me on that I was using a Term of Art which has not been formally 
defined here in the IETF so lets define the term SPONSOR ("Sponsor", 
"SPONSOR") for use in the IETF's IP Processes.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Question for the IETF... How are people supposed to
verify the IETF's assumptions?

SNIP

>
> First of all, you just capitalized Sponsor.  If you're going to do
> this, note that in formally drafted legal documents these sorts of
> terms are defined before they are used.

Ted
I think the term Sponsor as its generally used in the real world should also
work here in the IETF, so the term "SPONSOR" or "Sponsor" as what in legal
works is called "Terms of Art" should probably pertain to anyone who sends
another to an IETF meeting or subsidizes the IETF operations or the vetting
of IETF workproduct by a sponsored engineer. That also would include one
that provides any material support to the IETF and its operations, or other
access to resources used in the development of an Intellectual Property
inside the IETF. Sponsorship could also include anyone who donates or
contributes IP to the IETF as well then.

With that set of constraints, Sponsor's could for instance be a University,
a Research Laboratory, Trade Schools, or perhaps a Foundation, or a
Government.  Likewise then so is  Private Company or Private Citizen who
funds their own participation and attendance.

Sponsors would also hold all Work For Hire under Copyright rights unless
otherwise demonstrated as well. The term Sponsor's would also pertain to
those operating IETF mirrors and WG Mailing List Systems. They also qualify
as "Sponsor's of the IETF operations", as would an employer who sent Staff
Member's to the IETF meeting's or allows their participation through those
corporate infrastructures.

Wikipedia for instance defines "sponsor" as:
---
  To sponsor something is to support an event, activity, person,
  or organization financially or through the provision of products
  or services.
---
The Term "Sponsor" then is a person named for that activity. So the use of 
the Term Of Art is appropriate in writing I believe.

The definition for Sponsorship in Wikipedia continues that with:
---
  Many times a company's (any entities) motives for sponsorship
  are altruistic in order to create goodwill in the community which
  increases their good reputation. However, sponsorship is more
  commonly used to derive benefit from the associations created
  for a company's brand(s) or image as a result of the sponsorship.
---

My analysis is that in Global Standards those Sponsorships provide direct
access to the creation of technology standards which equate directly to the
marketability of certain Intellectual Properties and implementations of
those IP's in the form of Software's and Systems and so they form a key
aspect of Business Development for Technology Company's and as such are key
to them and not an Altruistic Endeavor.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:43:33 -0500

> "SPONSOR") for use in the IETF's IP Processes.

Todd, you just took a private e-mail that I sent to you and reposted
part of it on the list.  Some would consider that a breach of e-mail
etiquette.  I don't particularly care in this particular case, but
fact of the matter is that "defining Sponsor for use in the IETF's IP
Processes" is out of scope for the IETF mailing list.  If the IPR-wg
thinks that it is even necessary to define that Term of Art, they can
do so on the IPR-wg mailing list.  

If the IPR-wg don't think it's in scope, there may not be any IETF
mailing lists where the discussion of defining the term Sponsor may be
in scope.  If there are no documents where work group consensus
determines that such a term is needed either for discussing a
particular draft document or to use in a particular draft document,
that would not be a surprising result.

In any case, it is not in scope of the IETF list, and I would gently
ask that you take this discussion elsewhere.

Thank you.

							- Ted

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:42:14 -0800

No Ted...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>; "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF

> do so on the IPR-wg mailing list.

No Ted - I reacted to a private post you made about a public posting I made
and I did that by answering the criticism you made stating that because the
term wasnt properly defined in IETF-speak I couldnt use it.

I also want to point out that the term "PRIVATE" or "CONFIDENTIAL" never 
appeared in the mail to me, so as an officer of the IETF and one who does 
offer guidance to the operations of the IETF I took your suggestion about 
defining the term to heart.

> ask that you take this discussion elsewhere.

So then Ted isnt the IETF WG list isnt the place where matters without a WG 
are discussed? Is that true? Seems to me that the IETF cannot do that 
without creating a new home for projects without a WG.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:10:11 -0500

> without creating a new home for projects without a WG.

The IPR WG does exist.  So discussions about IPR-related matters
should be taken there.  If they, however, decide that they don't need
to define a term like "Sponsor", and rule it out of scope on for the
IPR working group, that doesn't mean that it is fair game for the IETF
list.

Regards,

					- Ted

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:05:35 -0300

Fully agree, while there is a specific mailing list for that matter (the IPR
WG), it should be taken there, unless it is then defined as out-of-scope.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:10:11 -0500
> Para: TS Glassey <[email-masked]>
> CC: IETF Discussion <[email-masked]>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Asunto: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:39:12 -0800

Jordi...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF

> Fully agree, while there is a specific mailing list for that matter (the
> IPR-WG), it should be taken there, unless it is then defined as 
> out-of-scope.

Gee Folks - The WG Chair of the IPR-WG threatened to take my posting rights
away for posting this material there. He made a determination without any
recourse on my part as to what was in scope for his working group.

Funny how that is eh?

Todd Glassey
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>