Subject: RE: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:40:49 +0200

Todd,

> The term "prefer" is the problem. 

Actually, I think "prefer" is exactly the right word to use
here, as it is up to the WG's to decide which parameters 
are important to consider in each case. 

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:59:48 -0700

Working groups don't get to adjust official policy on a case by case basis.
That's not what they are for. They are to provide Open and Fair environments
for ALL their initiatives and that means that they MUST all be identical.
The same procedures must be used for all initiatives and these must be
comparable to others or the words Fair and Open are meaningless.

Todd

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:24:55 -0700

> are important to consider in each case. 

What foolishness!  A policy that isn't really a policy!

/Larry Rosen

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:34:50 -0700

Lars - this is a reply from an Attorney. In fact OpenSource's Attorney...
So let me ask you and this WG this, who designed this IP policy, attorney's
or technologists? - I think the answer is pretty obvious though. Because
what I have found too often as a manager of technologists, is that we come
up with ideas and ask the legal department the following question "Does my
idea address these issues" rather than the really key question which is
"What is the best way of meeting these needs".

What the IETF in many instances has failed to take note of in my opinion, is
that in the former case what is happening is that the Attorney is forced to
validate that the client is competent to practice law, and in the latter
case, the attorney is specifying the framework from their legal experience.

So which is it? Has anyone asked Jorge what he would do as part of a Release
and Declaration process for IP? or is this more of the old "we will just ram
it down their throats and if the Attorney's don't bless it we will just fire
them" kind of attitude that seems so prevalent here?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)'" <[email-masked]>; "'todd
glassey'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:12:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Prefer is exactly the right word. Sometimes WGs get their preferences
fulfilled, sometimes not. But it is the right word.

Steve

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:50:48 -0700

I am sorry Steve but I believe you are dead wrong here. What the use of the
term "Prefer" means is that "WG's get a choice" and that is the problem.
Having a choice means that they can "arbitrarily decide to... or not to",
and as such "Fair and Open" don't work because the metrics are not the same
for each initiative.

The argument that is being used to substantiate this, that this initiative
is larger a part of the "consensus process", is also flawed, because any 3rd
grader that looked at the IETF work-flow would see that this assertion is
hogwash and that there is no culpable consensus process anywhere here except
that of the IESG, which also arbitrarily votes on what is what...

Ask the lawyer if you think I am wrong.

Or let me ask the is it that no one cares what the lawyers think? and that
they are going to continue to build an apparatus that is essentially
intentionally broken as such? I am just trying to figure out when the
Governments are going to step in and start asking questions here too. So in
closing, Steve, you certainly can silence me in this, but I have a real
ethics issue with continuing to build more boilerplate to make an underlying
flaw more complex to address.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Coya" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:24:26 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Todd,

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, todd glassey wrote:

>>I am sorry Steve but I believe you are dead wrong here. 

That's ok. It's one of the features of a fair and open process.

>>What the use of the term "Prefer" means is that "WG's get a choice" and
>>that is the problem. 

I prefer to think of "WG's get a choice" as the FEATURE, not the problem.

>>Steve, you certainly can silence me in this,

You credit me with too much power, influence, and inclination.

Steve

P.S.

A friend reminded me earlier this morning that I need to focus on getting
some work done, so I'll be quiet for a while (HEY, I hear you all laughing
at the above - cut it out ;-)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:52:50 -0700

Steve - thanks for your response.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Coya" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

> I prefer to think of "WG's get a choice" as the FEATURE, not the problem.

Why - the issue is how you and the rest of the management team, since no one
that has been involved as long as you have is really "out of it"..., are
dealing with the issues that there are many out there that do not believe
the process is either fair or open. Personally I think its a pretty serious
endictment and  whether its true or not ultimately is of little importantce
since from the earliest days the IETF has refused to put methods or
processes together to address these liabilities.

For instance, the claim that the IETF is a fair representation of the
concensus of the industry is ludicrous. There is no way to prove this about
anything inside this operating model. The issues are simple, the WG Chairs
and AD's get to make any number of arbitrary decisions about what "THEY"
personally want or dont want without any possibility of the WG Members being
able to effect control here, and the core reasons for that is becuase the
IETF refuses to acknowledge the membership when its a liability and claims
it when it needs to represent to people that it adequately repersents the
voices of the membership therein.

the facts are very simple here and are clearly evidenced by a multi-volume
and totally convoluted set of rules referencing passages and concepts in as
many as a dozen separate working documents. What this does is make the exact
word of the IETF process so difficult that one has to argue here and on
POISED as to what is reasonable and what is not.

Steve - this effort is making the process worse in my estimation and that is
what concerns me the most.
> at the above - cut it out ;-)

I too have this work issue to do to. So I also will be quiet for a bit as
well.