Subject: RE: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:31:01 -0400

I want to comment on two points:

A) I support the discussion from Scott Brim and Brian Carpenter .  An alternative (perhaps simplier) choice of words:

	6.2.1  Timing of disclosure under section 6.1.1
	The IPR disclosure required pursant to section 6.1.1 must be made 
	as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is incorporated 
	into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft or RFC, unless 
	the required disclosure is already on file.  For example,..........   

Compared to Scott Brim:
     The Contributor or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) or other
     organization holding the rights to IPR, must submit an IPR
     disclosure as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is
     incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft
     or RFC, unless there is already an IETF IPR disclosure by such
     person(s) on file that relates to the Contribution.  

B) There has also been some discussion on what kind of statements made during oral or electronic communications constitutes "contribution".  I propose tightening up the definition of "IETF contribution" in section 1 (c):

From:  
	"IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as an Internet-Draft or RFC (except
      for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any statement
      made within the context of an IETF Standards Process. Such
      statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as
      written and electronic communications....................

To:
	"IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as an Internet-Draft or RFC (except
      for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any statement
      made within the context of an IETF Standards Process that comments
	directly upon the substantive content of such a submission. Such
      statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as
      written and electronic communications....................

Thanks, Hung Ling

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 03:50:57PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly
wrote:
> In section 6.1.1 we have
> 
> >    This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are
> >    made by any means including electronic or spoken comments.  
> 
> How about changing this to:
> 
>    This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made
>    by any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the
>    latter are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could
>    reasonably be submitted.
> 
> and I think the same sentence is needed in 6.1.2. This seems objective
> to me (i.e. if an idea gets thrown out in less time than it takes to
> prepare a disclosure, the disclosure isn't required.)
> 
>    Brian

We want to 

  - avoid unnecessary burdens on both participants and IPR holders.  The
    goal is lean, mean, efficient production of good technology.

  - ensure that if anyone is influencing the standardization process
    while (personally and reasonably) knowing of related IPR, that it
    gets disclosed.

It's true that one can influence the standardization process a lot
through non-document "contributions".  On the other hand, several
vendors have said that they feel daunted by having to keep track of
disclosures possibly needed for every oral statement that someone might
make.  Stepping back for a minute, that requirement isn't really what
we're after -- we only have it, reluctantly, because it's the only way
we know to meet the above requirements.

I suggest that disclosing IPR related to such non-document
"contributions" can be allowed to wait until the draft is submitted.  If
a "contribution" never bears fruit in a document, then it doesn't matter
who has the IPR on it.  However, we don't want anyone to be able to send
a lot of mail on a subject until a draft comes out, and then go mum, and
not have to disclose.  So, at the time the draft comes out, people who
would have to disclose under the current proposed policy would still
have to do so -- the chickens would come home to roost.  But the
document would be the trigger.  

Functionally it's exactly the same as if the discloser had submitted a
draft up front.  It's early enough in the process -- at the time of
submission -- that the WG isn't completely derailed by late disclosure.
Also, I suspect this is how a lot of disclosures are handled anyway.
People float ideas and see if they get taken up, and they don't disclose
unless and until that happens.

So whether Brian's amendment gets incorporated or not, I suggest an
amendment to 6.2.1 (Timing of Disclosure Under 6.1.1).  It's pretty
simple, just change "made":

  Old:

     The Contributor or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) or other
     organization holding the rights to IPR, must submit an IPR
     disclosure as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is
     made unless there is already an IETF IPR disclosure by such
     person(s) on file that relates to the Contribution.  

  New:

     The Contributor or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) or other
     organization holding the rights to IPR, must submit an IPR
     disclosure as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is
     incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft
     or RFC, unless there is already an IETF IPR disclosure by such
     person(s) on file that relates to the Contribution.  

Finally, right now all the rewards and punishments go to the IPR holder,
not the participant who is responsible for the disclosure.  Right now
there is no consistency in what happens to an individual who does not
disclose IPR.  In the few cases I know of (this doesn't happen, or
doesn't get detected, very often in the IETF), some have even gone on to
be considered respected leaders.  It would be nice if there were some
kind of feedback for people who don't disclose.  I'm told that some
people are hesitant to disclose IPR because it makes them feel ashamed
in the working group.  It's hard to provide a carrot for disclosure.
Can we provide some kind of stick?  Is there an allowed way to say, for
example, that if someone doesn't disclose they are not allowed to submit
any more WG drafts for some period of time, something like that?

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:37:16 -0400

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 04:31:01PM -0400, Ling, Hung C (Hung) allegedly
wrote:
> B) There has also been some discussion on what kind of statements made
> during oral or electronic communications constitutes "contribution".
> I propose tightening up the definition of "IETF contribution" in
> section 1 (c):
> 
> From:  

I interpret this as saying that only comments on documents are relevant.
What about all the comments that are made when deciding what document to
write?  Those can have a profound effect on what gets standardized.  
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:38:02 +0300 (EEST)

> 	the required disclosure is already on file.  For example,..........   

Would this make it possible for someone to say "well, another company Foo 
has already made the required disclosure, so we don't have to" ?

When you look at it closely, I don't think that's possible, but someone 
might get that misapprehension.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:40:26 -0400 (EDT)

the definition of contribution is taken directly from teh note well note
a change would be a change to current runing code

---

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:42:58 -0400

> might get that misapprehension.

I don't think so because 6.1.1 is about disclosure related to one's own
contributions.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:46:33 -0700

Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]

> write?  Those can have a profound effect on what gets standardized.

yes this is absoluetely true. What I am thinking is that the whole procedure
has gooten to big with all the different initiaitves going on so an obvuious
fix  would be rethinking the vetting process to allow it to be done both on
and off list as long as all the communications between the vetting partners
is submissted as a part of the IP Package. Its actually not a bad model and
would address any number of loopholes or other gootchies in the current
process.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:44:06 -0700

Pekka - this is easily addressed by anyone that is part of a filing needing
to submit an IP release.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]

> > A) I support the discussion from Scott Brim and Brian Carpenter .  An
> > B) There has also been some discussion on what kind of statements made
during oral or electronic communications constitutes "contribution".  I
propose tightening up the definition of "IETF contribution" in section 1