Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:09:26 -0700

To point one, IMO the intention (and revised wording) actually splits the difference: it triggers a disclosure obligation once the contribution is included "in the submission which would become an I-D". The obligation to disclose would not be delayed until the I-D is actually published, nor would it be based on the Contributor's subjective judgment that s/he thinks it will be included sometime in the future. Basically, once the Contribution becomes part of a tangible work-in-progress in text form (published as an I-D or not), the obligation would be triggered. Perhaps the current wording doesn't capture this, but I am not sure how to do so in a better way.

Your second point is valid; perhaps the approach: "...at least as soon as reasonably possible after the Contributor becomes aware [or "realizes", or some other legally acceptable phrase] the Contribution has been incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft..." would be a better approach. This would base the obligation to disclose on the Contributor's actual knowledge that the Contribution has been accepted into a tangible work-in-progress.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Chuck Powers
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of
> draft-ietf-ipr-techn ology-rights-09.txt
> 
> 
> I think that is less reliable - and more prone to people forgetting
> becaue the ID may come out a long time after they realize that it
> will be put in a ID and they may forget by the time the ID comes out
> 
> in addition, your working puts a requirement on that may
> not be able to be met - what if the person does not realize that
> his contrinution was added to teh ID - your language puts a requirent
> to disclose even if the person does not know - that does not 
> sound like a
> good ide 
> 
> Scott
> 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:50:56 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Powers Chuck-rxcp20" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Scott Bradner'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of

> To point one, IMO the intention (and revised wording) actually splits the
difference: it triggers a disclosure obligation once the contribution is
included "in the submission which would become an I-D". The obligation to
disclose would not be delayed until the I-D is actually published, nor would
it be based on the Contributor's subjective judgment that s/he thinks it
will be included sometime in the future. Basically, once the Contribution
becomes part of a tangible work-in-progress in text form (published as an
I-D or not), the obligation would be triggered. Perhaps the current wording
doesn't capture this, but I am not sure how to do so in a better way.

Chuck - Which also brings up the issues of what to do about capturing the
commentary refecting in the WG sessions as well. I dont believe myself that
it is enough to represent that in the document as though there were no other
voices there.

>
> Your second point is valid; perhaps the approach: "...at least as soon as
reasonably possible after the Contributor becomes aware [or "realizes", or
some other legally acceptable phrase] the Contribution has been incorporated
into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft..." would be a better
approach. This would base the obligation to disclose on the Contributor's
actual knowledge that the Contribution has been accepted into a tangible
work-in-progress.

What do you do about the contributor that goes into a disclosure with an
alterior motive? And has knowledge of their intent early on but wants to
seed other uses for the IP's. The problem I see here is that this model does
not address this as a real possibility and it is.

"The idea is not to build a process that is reactive and self fixing, it is
to build a process that doesnt need to be fixed."

Todd

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:49:26 -0400

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 10:50:56AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> Chuck - Which also brings up the issues of what to do about capturing
> the commentary refecting in the WG sessions as well. I dont believe
> myself that it is enough to represent that in the document as though
> there were no other voices there.

That's a completely separate issue, which is done through working group
meeting notes, alternative drafts, and sometimes analysis documents.
You should go to a working group some time.  In any case it has nothing
to do with IPR.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:22:26 -0400 (EDT)

> some other legally acceptable phrase] the Contribution has been 
> incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft..." 
> would be a better approach.  This would base the obligation to disclose 
> on the Contributor's actual knowledge that the Contribution has been 
> accepted into a tangible work-in-progress.

I think it is better for the IETF to hear about IPR as soon as the
contributor realizes that people are taking the contribution seriously
and that is as soon as the contributor knows that it will be included
in an ID (for example, by teh ID author saying 'thats a good idea,
I will include it in the next rev' - I see no use in the delay and,
as I said before, I think it offers more chance of an honest error
to disclose because the contributor may not notice when the ID is
editrd or posted

Scott

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:32:13 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Scott Bradner
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 1:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt
> 
> 

Believe it or not, the valid interests of the IETf in learning about IPR
early are not the only interest to be considered here. Consider the
difficulties faced by the well-meaning corporate IPR department, who are a)
doing their best to disclose IPR pursuant to the rules and b) the only
player who could suffer consequences for failure to disclose .  Any rule
requiring disclosure before the document is actually submitted wil be very
difficult to comply with and will  encourage corporations to 'hide behind'
the personal knowledge of the participant. Make rules they can comply with
and expect them to comply. Encourage partcipants to comply earlier, but
don't require it.

______________________________________________

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:34:40 -0700

it would still be easier to file an IP declaration with the ID as part of
its release process.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t
echn ology-rights-09.txt

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:52:38 -0400

--On Friday, 13 June, 2003 16:22 -0400 Scott Bradner 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Your second point is valid; perhaps the approach: "...at
>> least as soon as reasonably possible after the Contributor
>> becomes aware [or "realizes", or  some other legally
>> acceptable phrase] the Contribution has been  incorporated
>> into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft..."
>> would be a better approach.  This would base the obligation
>> to disclose  on the Contributor's actual knowledge that the
>> Contribution has been  accepted into a tangible
>> work-in-progress.
>
> I think it is better for the IETF to hear about IPR as soon as
> the contributor realizes that people are taking the
> contribution seriously and that is as soon as the contributor
> knows that it will be included in an ID (for example, by teh
> ID author saying 'thats a good idea, I will include it in the
> next rev' - I see no use in the delay and, as I said before, I
> think it offers more chance of an honest error to disclose
> because the contributor may not notice when the ID is editrd
> or posted

This may be naive, but wouldn't a bit of "as soon feasible... 
but no later than the time the Contribution is incorporated..." 
language get us out of the tradeoff problem here?

It seems to me that some of the arguments can be turned around 
to say "some people/ companies, probably including those with 
corporate-wide policies about licensing for standards purposes, 
would prefer to get a disclosure stake in the ground early so as 
to not have to track when to make it, while others prefer to not 
go through the bureaucracy and expense of IPR-release evaluation 
when it might be unnecessary".  Both are reasonable and it seems 
to me that we should be able to accommodate both and move on.

      john

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:02:54 -0400 (EDT)

> it would still be easier to file an IP declaration with the ID as part of

I agree for your own submissions, my worry is teh case where your
contribution is included in someone else's ID (in that case your are 
not part of the ID release process)

Scott

---

From: "Robert Barr " <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:25:36 -0700

> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

Yes there is no easy answer for that but at least we can make a rule that
works for the case where the contribution becomes part of the contributor's
Idraft. 

Robert ______________________________________________

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:41:17 +0200

--On lørdag, juni 14, 2003 09:52:38 -0400 John C Klensin 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This may be naive, but wouldn't a bit of "as soon feasible... but no
> later than the time the Contribution is incorporated..." language get us
> out of the tradeoff problem here?
>
> It seems to me that some of the arguments can be turned around to say
> "some people/ companies, probably including those with corporate-wide
> policies about licensing for standards purposes, would prefer to get a
> disclosure stake in the ground early so as to not have to track when to
> make it, while others prefer to not go through the bureaucracy and
> expense of IPR-release evaluation when it might be unnecessary".  Both
> are reasonable and it seems to me that we should be able to accommodate
> both and move on.

this makes sense to me, at least.

note that in the pre-meeting rush to get your draft in before the deadline, 
I doubt very much that people will be able to make the IPR lawyers act fast 
enough to get "official-sounding" disclosures in at the same time as the 
I-Ds. So in practice, I think people will be flexible.

               Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:54:34 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t
echn ology-rights-09.txt

> not part of the ID release process)

The only possible fix here is a requirement for participants to disclose
this to the WG that teh standard is to be fostered by. The IETF's process
today cannot possibly deal with that and putting a note into the rules that
says that this is part of the boilerplate since there is no way to document
with teh current submissions and release process who submissted anything or
more importantly that they have authority to, as to others in the same WG
that might have IP control of efforts that others were spearheading in a WG,
this is a very nasty concept, the allowing others to build a standard around
IP you own to make it more valuable, and bluntly the only possible fix for
that is a process where you can permanently remove someone from the IETF for
violating the IP policies. Otherwise what possible stick does the IETF have?

Todd

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:07:07 -0400 (EDT)

works for me

----

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:52:38 -0400

john

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 08:50:57 -0700

Scott -
Which is to say that ALL the authors of any effort should individually have
to file releases against the IETF's liability for publishing the materials
in question...

There is nothing complex about this. Each of the authors files a separate
release stating that they have the legal right to do "this" as far as their
sponsor is concerned. As to the mailing lists issues , and someone else that
was building a SUBMARINE or something of that nature, those are unavoidable
anyway no matter what is signed. The only possible way to deal with that is
to set a permanent expulsion rule that says anyone "convicted" in a
"arbitration hearing" of submarining, or of intentionally violating the
IETF's IP policies, would be grounds for permanent exclusion from the IETF's
processes to protect the other participants. And if there is enough checks
and balances in place this would hold up under pretty serious prosecution I
would bet. (Jorge?, Robert? Larry?)

Scott and Steve - I think that the real problem that has to be tackled as
part of this is that there is no way for the IETF to correct the damage it
does by putting out into the world that it doesn't have release or right to.
There is no current "Cease and Desist" policy, no way to recall anything
once its granted a standard and no way to stop people from using it once its
released making the IETF's processes critically dangerous to IP control by
anyone's take... and more importantly, this is all so simple to solve, its
almost offensive that it has caused this many arguments.

    1)    Every participant signs a release for their participation on the
Mailing Lists.  This is a general release not specific to any one effort or
forum within the IETF... it says that they understand the implications of
their participation with regard to IP's and the legal possibilities that
they may be exposed to IP's here that are controlled or have outside
ownership and that there are potential liabilities therein.

    2)    For each document to be published, the submitters (*all of them)
file both a collective and individual releases. The collective release says
that they are all working together and there are no collective issues with
the IP release, or that there are and "these are what they are...", and then
another personal release that says that their organization and/or sponsor
has working knowledge of their involvement and supports it in this
initiative. And all of this can be done online with eSign invoked around it.

This is not a fascist approach, it's simple "proper business"...

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t
echn ology-rights-09.txt

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:57:01 -0700

Scott - Steveo

I want to be clear here on what we are talking about:

    1)    What responsibilities people have with declaring their IP's when
they are submitted... Releases, declarations, responsibilities to disclose,
(in my best Yul Bryner voice) "etc etc etc".

    2)    What responsibilities people have when others step into areas that
they have claims against or are intending to file claims against for
activities that are going on outside the IETF and its forums...
responsibilities to disclose and the form of the declarations, etc etc
etc...

    3)    How we make the IETF clean from liability for what happens inside
it...

    4)    How we put in place a method of minimizing the amount of damage
any participant could suffer from either a "submarining" by another IP
owner, or an instance where their critical IP's were disclosed on any of
this organizations forums...

is there more? and if so, what did I miss here?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t
echn ology-rights-09.txt