Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:30:49 +0200

As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely 
contentious.

So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work 
(copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to 
recharter the WG to deal with patent issues.

I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the 
issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general 
discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done,

The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are:

- No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down.

- A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what 
the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the IETF 
meeting.

- A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More 
discussion is necessary.

- No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary.

I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text 
(preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible:

- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent 
policy

- What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address

- What the charter for this activity should look like

If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each 
submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at 
least half an hour for general discussion.

Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of 
draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us 
to find them all.

The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the 
rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130.

                Harald

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

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:10:48 -0700

Harald,

I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else
there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier
email:

***************

I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and
procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result
in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents.

***************

I also hope that a decision on this will not be based simply on who attends
in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants.

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
> 
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:07:48 -0700

>I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible:
>
>- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent policy
>
>If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least half an hour for general discussion.
>
>Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us to find them all.
>
>The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130.

Just to be clear, if someone has the view that documents like Simon's
how-to should be within the charter of the working group, but that there
are no changes needed to the base policy, do you still want an I-D?  Or
is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough?

					Ted

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:24:51 +0200

> is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough?
In the case of Simon's I-D, there is already an existing I-D, which (if
I remember rightly - it's been a long time since I've read it) explains
its rationale fairly well. So a simple request to have that placed on
the agenda, with a brief statement of what the desired outcome is,
should be enough.

                Harald

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:54:01 +0200

> there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier
Thanks for the comment. I look forward to seeing your I-D, and hope you
will find someone to present it in Vancouver.

> in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants.
Since we don't vote, it won't be decided by a vote.
I don't rule out opinion polls...