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

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:43:18 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Danny,

I was present as an invited huest at the recent GSC meeting where this
resolution was developed and approved.  Note that *I* was there, the "IETF"
was not - I was not (and am not) empowered to speak for the IETF.

I did talk with the editor of the resolution and made some suggestions to
make the text clearer, so I suppose one could say that I "participated" in
its development.

But as a guest (the IETF is not a member of the GSC), I was not in a
position to support or not support the resolution - so the fact that I was
in the room should not be taken to mean that I took (or have) any       
particular position on the resolution and, since I do not speak for
the IETF, that the IETF took any particular position on the resolution.

In my opinion, the only way that the IETF could be seen as taking a
position on any topic is to follow the IETF standards process (publish an
ID, discuss the ID on a mailing list and maybe in a face to face meeting,
issue an IETF last call then have the IESG approve publication of the ID)  
- that clearly did not happen in regards to the GSC resolution so it can
not be said that the IETF has expressed any opinion on the GSC resolution. 

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

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:21:37 +0200

> Working groups don't get to adjust official policy on a case 
> by case basis.

Of course not, but our IPR policy is not there to enforce one
single way of addressing IPR among all other concerns in
protocol technology development. It seems like you still do
not want to understand the meaning of our IPR policy.

/L-E

> > 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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:02:45 -0400

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)