Subject: RE: IETF Rights in Submissions

From: "Reb Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:48:25 -0500

I agree.  I intended to keep the discussion on the list and just hit the
wrong button and didn't notice.  Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:11 PM
To: Reb Thomas
Subject: Re: IETF Rights in Submissions

In message <[email-masked]>, "Reb Thomas"
writ
es:
>In Section 2.2 you say that the contributor "hereby agrees".  In Section
>2.3, second line of the lead paragraph you say "deemed to agree" which is a
>less direct statement.  I am not sure if this was intended.
>
>I am familiar with people being considered bound when they click "I agree"
>or otherwise manifest their agreement to be bound.  I don't recall but I
>probably clicked "I agree" to all ISOC/IETF terms and conditions of
>membership when I signed up through the ISOC website about a year or so
ago.
>Your draft does a nice job of wrapping the agreement terms in a
>non-threatening manner using terms like "memo" and "policy" but I would
>suggest that this does not help its usefulness or clarity.  The language
>that is not essential to the formation of the contractual understanding
>should be removed to a companion expanatory document.  Then some clearer
>focus can be brought to the document by giving it a heading such as
"LICENSE
>AGREEMENT FOR IETF SUBMISSIONS".
>
>Having just plowed through the flame war e-mails you refer to below and
>having seen the numerous references to people just acting on their own
>behalf and to their employers not being represented in or members of IETF,
I
>find it interesting that the grant of rights that the contributor is being
>deemed to make is on behalf of the contributor, AND "on behalf of the
>organization (if any) the contributor represents" ....  It seems that the
>IETF needs to come to grips with whether people involved do or do not
>"represent" their employers.  This is easy when one is a sole
proprietorship
>such as myself and possibly a few others on this list but normally
questions
>of representation and scope of authority are difficult to parse at best.
>
>Not that I think it would be the best approach in all cases, but a more
>formalized membership process that recognizes entities and the people that
>represent entities might reduce some of the useless thrashing (some will
say
>that this is concensus building but I don't see it at the moment) that
seems
>to be going on at the moment.  Certainly there are a few vocal opponents to
>this idea but I suspect that the less vocal (silent) majority may agree
that
>an unincorporated association of individuals may not be the best way to
>further the development of Internet standards in the rough and bruising
>world of today's IP rights.

You make some good points; it would be better if you posted them to the
list.  Re your second point:  I believe it's intended to cover the
copyright status of works for hire -- as you understand far better than
I do, anything I write in the scope of my employment belongs to my
employer.  (Even the book whose URL is listed below is copyright AT&T.)

I'll pass your note on the Scott Bradner, the author, but as I said,
these are issues best discussed publicly.

		--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