Subject: draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-09.txt

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:03:54 -0700

Commentary on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-09.txt

Lets start at the beginning:

"Abstract

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
   much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
   possible.  The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet
   community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
   rights of IPR holders.  This memo details the IETF policies
   concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF.  It
   also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.
   This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC XXXY, replaces Section 10 of
   RFC 2026.  This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC
   2028 and replaces reference 2 in RFC 2418. [note to RFC editor -
   replace XXXY with number of IETF SUB]"

My comments regarding the text:

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
   much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
   possible.

I would change it to something more like:

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
   much information about any IPR constraints on approved initiatives as
   possible.

The intent is to simplify the requirement and to limit the IETF's exposure
to "only fully approved and officially supported projects".  And to be
honest I think its a really bad idea to add yet another ball to the ones
already permanently in the air for the IETF's IP process.

---

My comments regarding the phrase "This memo details the IETF policies
concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF."

Hmmm, as I understand it, an Internet-Draft by its sheer definition CANNOT
be referred by anyone let alone the IETF. It is a solicitation for building
of a vetting team. It's developmental work product is the RFC, and by the
book, that is the first referable document produced by this organization's
defined standards process.

It's just a nit really, because if we argue long enough about it we will
pass the six-month period expiry and the documents can then be refiled as
RFC's... but what the hell - the sarcastic in me wants to say something like
"no one pays attention to the rules here anyway, except when they are trying
to stop someone else from doing something." - Sorry - couldn't resist. Lets
go on...

---

and finally my commentary on:

   This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC XXXY, replaces Section 10 of
   RFC 2026.  This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC
   2028 and replaces reference 2 in RFC 2418. [note to RFC editor -
   replace XXXY with number of IETF SUB]"

OK, but look at it this way, this workflow is now documented in a minimum of
four separate documents, since you are subbing the sections of 2026 and 2418
out so at minimum the submitters and their counsels MUST review and agree to
the terms of these four separate documents before they can possibly make an
"Informed Consent Decision" as to anything here, (remember that term too -
"Informed Consent"...  and further what is missing is that there are parts
of the larger IETF process that would also need to be referenced relative to
the dispute resolution and other issues like a process to force the IETF to
cease and desist any further work on something until its IP ownership was
determined in a more formal framework or forum.

The point here is that by increasing this process to a larger number of
documents, that increases the general risk and weakens the strength of the
liability protection to the IETF as a whole. Anyone who has had to deal with
technology contracts would tell you that and anyone that thinks that what
the IETF is working on here is anything other than the Contractual Terms of
IP processes within the IETF is sadly mistaken.

With that said, is making this a larger can of worms strategically or
tactically a good idea?

Todd

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:51:53 -0400

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 11:03:54AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
>    designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have
>    as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical
>    proposal as possible.
> 
>    designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have
>    as much information about any IPR constraints on approved
>    initiatives as possible.
> 
> The intent is to simplify the requirement and to limit the IETF's
> exposure to "only fully approved and officially supported projects".
> And to be honest I think its a really bad idea to add yet another ball
> to the ones already permanently in the air for the IETF's IP process.

Except that you want to know about IPR constraints before selecting a
technical direction.  Thus you need the IPR knowledge before a "project"
is "approved".