Subject: Re: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies (FOrwarded)

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:54:24 -0400

I don't think this message made it to the list yesterday, due to some 
local mailer troubles.  (If it did, I apologize for the duplication.)

------- Forwarded Message

In message <04c501c330f8$71680150$020aff0a@tsg1>, "todd glassey" writes:
>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, if all attorneys agreed there would never be any lawsuits.  I 
think we have running code to the contrary.

Jorge has been closely involved in drafting these I-Ds.  When he's told 
us that something we technologists proposed wasn't right, we changed 
it.  When he gave us language that from a legal perspective was better, 
we used it.  From where I sit, there have been exactly zero hostile, 
tense, or confrontational discussions with him.  We know what we want 
to accomplish; he knows how best how to do it.  In fact, interactions 
with Jorge are much more collegial than the average working group, 
where we all have (we assume) equally-valid technical perspectives.  
(Just look at the Site Local discussions in ipv6 to see what I mean!)  
When discussing ipr-wg issues, we all accept that Jorge knows the law 
and we know the IETF culture and practices, and we each respect the 
others' expertise.

But we're off-topic here, and your digressions are starting to generate 
a lot of traffic.  That's not good.  Putting on my chair hat, I would 
like this working group to finish its tasks.  At this point, we are 
*not* discussing changes to the IETF's IPR policy -- the window for 
that closed on April 9, when by a fairly strong consensus the working 
group decided not to.  I realize that you disagree, as did many other 
people.  But IETF policy does not require unanmity, it simply requires 
strong consensus.

This working group is also not discussing fundamental changes to the 
structure of the IETF.  Such proposal are perfectly in order, but not 
here.  If you want to pursue your ideas, I think you know what to do:  
write an I-D, submit it, and send pointers to the appropriate mailing 
lists.  (At a guess, some candidates would be poised and maybe 
problem-statement; as a matter of course, I-D announcements go to 
ietf-annouce.)  See who else is interested.  If there's enough interest 
to warrant forming a WG, we can discuss it at that point.  But the IPR 
tail isn't big enough to wag the IETF dog.

The primary purpose of this mailing list is to discuss the three drafts 
specifically called out in the charter:  submission rights, technology 
rights, and guidelines.  Rob and I hope to reissue a WG last call on 
those very soon, since the issues revealed by the previous last call 
have been resolved.  We're also discussing the template and Pekka's 
draft, since those are related to implemenation of the *current* policy.
Anything else is out of scope.

So -- in the interests of making progress in this WG, I am politely 
asking everyone to refrain from off-topic postings, even in response to 
other off-topic mail.  We don't want to take stronger measures to 
enforce the request.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

------- End of Forwarded Message

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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