Subject: Nit (I hope) in technology-rights

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:08:39 +0200

Sorry that I spotted this just after Scott submitted yet
another version.

RFC 2418 is about working group procedures. It contains this text:

   WG participants should specifically note the
   requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest in [2].

[2] is RFC 2028, about the various organizations involved in IETF work. 
It does not contain anything about conflict of interest. However, it 
does say

   To ensure a fair and open process, participants in the IETF and its
   Working Groups must be able to disclose, and must disclose to the
   Working Group chairs any relevant current or pending intellectual
   property rights that are reasonably and personally known to the
   participant if they participate in discussions about a specific
   technology.

I find it very odd that this is hidden in the "wrong" RFC. It seems
to me that draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights ought to be the single
source for disclosure requirements; if not, it needs an explicit
pointer to the paragraph in 2028. As for the "conflicts of interest"
reference in 2418, it is definitely confusing. Perhaps
draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights needs to obsolete both of the above
quotations.

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:13:20 -0400 (EDT)

reasonable idea

----

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:27:37 -0400

> draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights needs to obsolete both of the above

RFC 2028 should keep *some* reference to disclosure, because at this
point we need to be sure people are very aware of the rules.  I think
2028's text is okay as it stands -- no need to redo it just for this.
However, technology-rights can say, at the top of Section 6, that it
overrides any discussion of disclosure requirements in previous RFCs,
mentioning specifically 2028 and others.

I'm ironically amused to see that no one has noticed that the conflict
of interest reference leads nowhere.

.swb

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 05:24:05 -0700

Scott is right, this passage clearly belongs also in RFC2026 but moreover
this also belongs in this WG's operational docs as well.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPR WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: Nit (I hope) in technology-rights

> of interest reference leads nowhere.

Scott the problem wit COI concerns is that this organization would be leveld
by them. There is no separation really between the sponsors and their
players here, and this is all glossed over by a thin veneer of "we are doing
it for the people - rah rah rah"... but this IETF is about $$$ and there are
a lot of them on the table, make no mistake. So the day is coming when this
issue of "accountability and conflicts of interest, and most importantly,
Stadards processes intentionally designed so that once presented can never
be retracted making whatever damage they do of a permanent nature", is
rethought...