Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt

From: "Joe Zebarth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:44:17 -0500

Attached are a number of comments on draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-01.txt
that are offered for consideration, on the understanding that their adoption
would improve the current draft.

General Comments

1	The nature of the IETF participation structure does not mesh with
the structure proposed in this document, with respect to the ability of
contributors to comply with IETF demands.

2	Consistent with comments made on a previous version of this
document, trademarks should treated separately from the IPR mix as they have
characteristics distinct from rights created through innovation processes.
Once the IETF understands trademark licenses requirements and obligations
itself, it is felt that the IETF would support the seeking of permission
statements when dealing with the subject of trademarks.

Specific Comments

1	Page 2, Para 2, line 3:

The statement "In addition, contributors must make representations to IETF
and ISOC regarding their ability to grant these rights...." contains a
discussion of the contributor's ability to make "representations relating to
contributions".  This statement is inconsistent with the IETF position that
individuals represent themselves.  In this regard, the IETF may need to
adopt a company/individual mix, since many times the participants are
employees of companies, and will probably not have authority to make these
representations.  (See General Statement 1 above.)

2	Page 2, 2nd last Para of Section 1

In the bullet list associated with this paragraph:

Delete the first bulleted item as it is not known what it means 

Delete the bulleted item for "trademarks".  It is recommended that this
trademarks bulleted item be stricken because "trademarks" are a very
different issue from the other items in the bullet list and thus it is felt
that this subject should not be bundled with the subject of copyright.
Specifically, trademark exists through commercial activity.  In a gross
over-generalization, company trademark rights are not generally achieved
through standards setting organization participation.

Comments were issued on the subject of trademarks in regards to issue ID
draft issue -00, via  the [email-masked] mailing list on December 10, 2002
at 4:53 Eastern time, and will not be repeated here.  However, it is felt
that these comments are still valid and should be reconsidered.

If trademarks are to be retained in this document, the IETF should be
seeking a permission statement with respect to trademarks.

3	Page 3, Section 2.3, Para 1, last 2 lines before the first bullet:

The statement that reads "...the contributor represents and on behalf of the
owners of any proprietary rights in the contribution."  caused concern
during review of the previous draft.  

It was brought to my attention that the objective of this is, if text in the
contribution is not original, i.e. it has been copied from another source,
then it is being copied and inserted in the contribution with the knowledge
and permission of the originator and copyright holder of the copied
information.  It would be helpful to make this clarification to the
document.  Possibly the text could be modified to read as "..the contributor
represents and on behalf of the owners of any copyrights, i.e. the
contributor is deemed to have obtained consent of the owner of any
copyrighted information copied and inserted within the contribution, in the
contribution."  

4	Page 3, Section 2.3, Bullet item a., last line before bullet item
(A)

In the sentence that reads "right and license to the ISOC and the IETF under
all intellectual property rights in the contribution:" the following text
should be stricken "under all intellectual property rights in the
contribution".  Retention of the identified text would cause extensions
beyond the copyright and author rights intended by this paragraph.  

Additionally, a limitation should be provided as well with respect to
limitations and controls on technology exports.

5	Page 3, Section 2.3 Bullet item a, Para 1

After invoking the above comment, replace section 2.3(a) with "With a
contribution, or to those portions authored by a contributor, the
contributor grants to the IETF and the ISOC in the copyright and other
rights as applicable in the contribution, a perpetual, irrevocable,
non-exclusive, paid-up license:

6	Page 3, Section 2.3, Bullet item a. (C)

Delete Section 2.3(a)(C) in view of earlier discussion on Trademark rights.

7	Page 4, Section 2.6

This does not appear to be related to an "IETF Rights in Submission" item.
It is not clear what it is trying to achieve and its presence in this
document just adds confusion.  It is recommended that section 2.6 be
stricken from the document.

8	Page 8, Section 4.8

This does not appear to be related to an "IETF Rights in Submission" item.
It is not clear what it is trying to achieve and its presence in this
document just adds confusion.  

It is recommended that section 4.8 be stricken from the document.  It should
be noted that in comments to the ID on ipr technology rights the following
statement was made  'In particular the words "would be reasonably be
expected to know" should as a minimum be stricken, in that they are
contradictory to RFC 2026.'.

9	Page 10, Section 5.3, Para 3, line 7

The use of a new term "independent submissions" at this point does not
appear to be justified, as there is no definition for the term.  As a
result, the point attempting to be made is I believe lost.  

10	Page 11, Section 5.4. Para 1, 3rd sentence

A contributor would/may only grant permissions with respect to trademarks, a
license would place responsibilities and obligations on the IETF beyond what
it contemplates.  (Refer to General Statement 2)  This is why the trademark
issue should be separated from the IPR issues. 

11	Page 11, Section 5.5, Para 1 

To improve clarity the following text should be added to the end of the
first paragraph, between the last word and the closing period, viz.
", any such rights need to be obtained from the copyright owner". 

Kindest regards,

Joe Zebarth
Dept. 6L41
ATI Strategic Standards
Nortel Networks (Canada)
Phone: +1 613 765 8481
ESN:    6+395 8481
Fax:     +1 613 763 2697
ESN:    6+393 2697
http://www.nortelnetworks.com

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:32:43 +0100

Joe Zebarth wrote:

...
> The statement "In addition, contributors must make representations 
> to IETF and ISOC regarding their ability to grant these rights...." contains a
> discussion of the contributor's ability to make "representations relating 
> to contributions".  This statement is inconsistent with the IETF position
> that individuals represent themselves.  

I don't see this as a problem. The IETF position is that individuals
give their own engineering opinions and judgements. But most of us declare
an affiliation when registering and by wearing our badges. There is no
inconsistency between this and a participant's ability, when making
a contribution, to indicate its copyright status (e.g. "my management
has agreed to..."). 

By extension, I think Joe's General Argument 1 is wrong too.

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