Subject: Re: Request for re-charter of the IETF IPR working group

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 13:54:08 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Doug Johnson writes:
>Brian,
>
>The latter half of the IPR agenda is spcifically to address the "way ahead". Y
>ou
>are not suggesting that re-charter discussions are out of scope for the curren
>t
>working group, are you?
>
>>From Steve's agenda for tha Atlanta meeting:
>
>  But the charter also says "If there consensus of the working group
>  for a different IPR policy than the one described in RFC 2026, the
>  working group will seek to amend its charter to make it clear that
>  it is changing the status quo."   The open mike session will primarily
>  be dedicated to that question -- do we want to recharter to change
>  our IPR policy?  The final 15 minutes will be for assessing the
>  consensus of the WG on our future path.
>
>Sounds to me like possible re-chartering _is_ part of the existing charter.

Right.  Rob and I suspect that there will be little controversy about 
the current drafts, which means that discussing moving ahead is the 
next step.

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

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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 23:09:17 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Bruce Perens writes:
>From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
>> the group does not decide its own charter.  that's not how it works.
>
>I am an IETF beginner, so please feel free to enlighten me with selections
>from the charter and other documents. I'll also attend the beginners
>introductory sessions tomorrow.
>
>That said, my perception was that the group requests to IETF that it
>be re-chartered. I also see that discussion of re-chartering is on the
>agenda for Sunday, so I don't believe that there's any valid argument
>that discussions of rechartering are not in scope.
>

You're right -- the group proposes a charter, but the AD and the IESG 
have to approve it, and this approval process often involves changes.

The original mission of the IPR working group was to clarify 2026.  
Because there are -- let's say "different opinions" -- on the the 
fundamental IPR policy, we decided on a two-step process.  First, the 
group finishes the clarification process.  I hope that that can be 
wrapped up in the next few weeks.  

The next step is to decide whether or not we want to change the policy. 
That discussion is part of the agenda for Monday.  *If* we decide we 
want to change -- that is, *if* there's a rough consensus of the group 
to change -- we'll draft a new charter and submit it to the IESG.  
If it happens, it will be an iterative process, with cycles between the 
working group, Rob and I (with me wearing my chair hat), Harald (as 
General Area Director), and the IESG as a whole with advice from the 
IAB.  Charters are generally supposed to state precisely what the WG is 
going to produce; if we don't know at charter time what the desired 
policy will be, it's quite possible that we'll end up with another 
multistep process involving a requirements document first.  But it's 
way too soon to be trying to predict that -- right now, we haven't 
agreed to start down that road.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:37:31 -0700 (MST)

>> It would appear to me that the level of 
>> discussion here would support a re-charter
>

Thanks Keith, I should have referred to a re-charter request.

--
Doug Johnson

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:59:47 -0500

Folks -- while you're certainly welcome to your own opinions about 
other peoples' motives or their organizations' motives, the IETF 
*process* assumes that everyone is speaking as an individual.  Attack a 
scheme because someone's employer makes money, or because of some 
overriding ideological agenda, is out of scope.  Let's focus on the 
issues here, and not on personalities.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:46:51 -0500

In message <03ac01c29020$316d38f0$927ba8c0@ROSENGARDEN>, "Lawrence E. Rosen" wr
ites:
>Hi Scott,
>
>Bruce, I think, will do as he wants.  As for me, I intend to speak up on
>this issue.  Please explain what this "clarification" phase is all about
>that you intend to "finish" in time for a "next meeting."  I'm new to
>the process.  
>

<chair hat on>

Our charter -- in the usual IETF analogy, the working group's contract 
with the IESG on what we should (and should not) do -- says that our 
first task is to produce three documents clarifying the current policy 
as expressed in rfc 2026.  I had hoped that that task would be finished 
by now; it was clear from yesterday's meeting that only one of the 
three documents is done.  Depending on what happens on the mailing list 
between now and mid-February, we may need to request an agenda slot for 
the San Francisco IETF in March.

After the clarification documents are done, we  see if there's a 
consensus to recharter.  Among the participants in the room yesterday, 
there was not only no consensus that we should recharter, there was a 
consensus that we should not.  If that continues to be the case, this 
working group will conclude when the documents are done.

</chair hat on>