Subject: DRAFT minutes from Prague IPR WG meeting

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:48:37 +0200

Thanks to Scott Bradner for compiling these minutes.

I have inserted various points from the slides; if you were present (in 
person or via audio/jabber), please send any comment you have to the 
minutes as soon as you can.

                     Harald

Date: March

I - agenda bashing: no changes

II - outgoing rights draft
   anyone wish to raise issues before going to IESG
   Simon (on Jabber) - I sent in a review 
   Harald: who thinks its ready for iesg - no response
   Brian - ok but should be reviewed on mailing list
   no objections in the room to send to IESG but Harald will take
	question to list

III - matching issues to resolutions
   Harald reviewed issues from issues list and the resolutions
	1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds
		Resolution: Permitted
	1167 Excerpt labeling
		Resolution: SHOULD label, format as appropriate
	1168 non-code excerpts
		Resolution: Permitted
	1169 Modified excerpts
		Resolution: Permitted for code, not permitted for non-code
	1175 How can code be distinguished from non-code?
		Resolution: List of types of content + a marker mechanism – Trust maintains
	1199 What license should the IETF grant to third parties on Contributions?
		Resolution: Unmodified excerpts for non-code, excerpt & modify for code
	1212 Copyright statements in I-Ds and RFCs: Meaning?
		Resolution: Basically meaningless in I-Ds, relevant for RFCs
	1237 Should incoming rights be published as 3978 delta or replacement?
		Resolution: Replacement
	1238 Should secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holder on 3rd party IPR
		disclosures
		Resolution: Yes. draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix approved in January.
	1239 Understanding intent of participants
		Resolution: None needed.
	1400 Permission to modify code: Unlimited or restrictable
		Resolution: Unlimited
	no argument that these issues should be closed
   Harald reviewed issues that have not been resolved
	1246 Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights?
		Not resolved, punted to next agenda item
	1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?
		San Diego: Somebody else’s problem (closed)
	1282 Should multiple copyright statements be permitted in I-Ds and RFCs?
		Suggestion: none needed for I-D, RFC Editor matter for RFCs
		Need the ability to do “joint” for joint publication. Need to avoid lots of
		conflicting ones.
	1337 Notices and Rights Required in RFC Editor Contributions
		Proposal: RFC Editor’s problem (+IAB) – not the WG’s issue.
	1338 Notices "normally placed at the end“ (raised in conjunction with nits checker)
		Word “normally” was chosen to be non-nonrmative. Don’t check.
	1339 Does RFC 3978 3.3.a.(E) grant third parties rights to modify source
		Jorge believes that license permits extraction & bugfixing.

	close - what is an excerpt
	multiple copyrights statements in ID - may need for other SDO
		document
	rfc ed specific text in incoming doc - consensus: should
		be removed
	others as on slide

IV - incoming draft
   add phrase that says what is normative and what is not
	boilerplate - should it be there?
	Scott Bradner - yes
	Brian Carpenter - changes are painful but 1st set of
		boilerplate important
	Scott Bradner - do not need most of boilerplate - need
		1st pp & exp date
	Harald - conclusion: short boilerplate - with trust ok to change
	John Klensin - should be in RFC and unchangeable or just
		a pointer
	Scott Bradner - how about pointer with text that says
		text for start of ID that summaries responsibilities 
		of authors in light of bcp 79
	Harald - how many support pointing to doc maintained by trust?
			consensus in favor
   Harald -incoming doc structure:
	abstract
	defs
	intro & descriptions
	legal stuff

   John Klensin - need to have incoming stable before last calling outgoing
   Harald - do WGLC on outgoing but say that doc will not go to
	IESG until incoming done to cover what -outgoing needs
   Ted Hardie (via Jabber) - not do IETF Last Call until incoming
	document finished working group last call

meeting concluded

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:43:19 -0700

Good work Harald...

Some commetary on what I think are still convoluted documents, I will keep 
them to
BCP78 in this commentary:

0) The claim is that the process of the IETF's standardization model
respects the rights of others as defined in BCP78's section 3.1, but this is
in fact not true based on the other clauses in the document. In fact all
rights for all uses are lost for any and all derivative works including
those from Vetting and WG activities as well... So there is 'no intent or
otherwise to respect any previously controlled rights" and if there were
there would be a more rigorous process for donating IP to the IETF.

Also there is an grating issue of "that contracts without proper
consideration are void for that lack of consideration" and the contract I am
referring to is the "gift of the IP to the IETF"... This is a key flaw in
the IETF's process today since if the IETF refuses to publish the
'submission' there is no proper consideration for the submission itself. If
it is a gift then there are tax implications for the submitter and their
organization at the very least and the IETF too probably which MUST be
reviewed...

By the way - as noted this "consideration" may be the publishing of the
document as a RFC or I-D... but without the 'appropriate consideration and
its valuation' the transfer of any IP to the IETF is at best questionable.
This is simple US Contract Law and is true in every major country I know of
as well.

Again ask Jorge for a formal opinion on this if you doubt my commentary

next stop is BCP78 3.3...

1) the "Unlimited License to modify and then use without any restrictions,
code submitted to the IETF as part of a standards process" which pretty
obviously means that the submitter will then no longer control that code or
its derivatives. See section 3.3 (a) (E) of BCP78 for more confirmation of
this commentary.

This clause totally eliminates any control of that IP once it is submitted
to the IETF which means that the submitter retains no rights whatsoever
including patentability. This is not just a (c) specific statement... all
the end-user rights are transferred to the IETF ...That's right - they are
all gone per this statement.

In fact the caveat at the end of the Statement which excludes Patent Rights
is ineffective IMHO based on the statement prior to it. ANY AND ALL USES
means ANY AND ALL USES including new and derivative patents, period. Adding
this new clause as a separate clause to the end of that statement makes the
validity of the statement and its enforceability questionable IMHO...

Bluntly the IETF and anyone who relies on their publications is free to do
whatever to the code/IP submitted after that including use it for any
purpose outside of the IETF Standards Process as directly noticed in (a)
(E).

Also again, there is the issue that the IETF's submission process should
require a signature to codify this. :-)

2) Likewise BCP78's sub-section (C) of 3.3 (a) is also flawed since all
works that are vetted through the process of the IETF's standards process
are derivative works... for which the initial submitter retains NO RIGHTS
whatsoever as far as I can tell. Those efforts belong collectively to the
Sponsors and the WG Members who do that vetting and are assigned by NOTEWELL
and Submission Rules to the IETF.

3) The Derivative Rights permissions under section 5.2 of BCP78 actually
prevent any vetting or republishing of the work either by the IETF/ISOC or
its RFC Editor, or by the WG itself. In fact these stop the standards
process dead in its tracks since NO Derivative Works of any type can be made
from submissions tagged as such including those defined in 3.3 (a) (E)...

4) Under the BCP78 Copyright Statement there is a clause that says:

      This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
      contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
      retain all their rights."

Unfortunately the conflicting statements of 3.3 (a) (A), (B), and (E) and
those elsewhere make this (c) statement invalid IMHO. In submitting any
materials for publication the individuals lose all of their rights and so
this statement is void and unenforceable as far as I can tell.

Again - dont take my word for it, ask Jorge.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: DRAFT minutes from Prague IPR WG meeting

                     Harald

Date: March

1238 Should secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holder on 3rd
party IPR
1338 Notices "normally placed at the end“ (raised in conjunction with nits
checker)

IV - incoming draft

meeting concluded

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:49:14 -0700

Jorge, Harald, SOB and Bellovin - What I propose to correct these 
deficiencies is a simple and easily understood set of conveyance rules which 
I think should be something like as follows:

    1)    "By submitting this work and authorizing the transfer of its IP 
Ownership to the ISOC's IETF, the submitter warrants that they are the Legal 
Owner of those rights or the Legal Agent of the Owner of those rights such 
that they may act as the Entity controlling those IP rights. The Submitter 
further warrants that they assume all liability for those acts and 
acknowledge that they understand  that the IETF's function as the recipient 
of those IP's is to republish that material as a formal part of its 
Standards and IP Disclosure Process".

[Statement one essentially says that they (the submitter) have the authority 
or Power Of Attorney for those works and that they can submit them. Also 
that they  (the submitter) assume the legal responsibility for those actions 
and that the IETF is NOT responsible for anything regarding the submission 
and publishing of controlled IP's... this is more and more a very important 
thing to deal with IMHO]

    2)    "In submitting this IP to the IETF, the Submitter(s) warrant that 
they intend to make this IP freely available to the IETF and its Standards 
Processes 'for any and all reasonable uses' within that Standards Process". 
They also acknowledge that Research Exemptions under US Copyright Law will 
only apply to those instances where the reprinting of those documents is 
performed as part of the IETF's Standards Process and for no other reason. 
Any other reprinting of the IETF Documents is performed under the IETF's 
'outgoing use license' and is not supported under the US Copyright Act's 
Section 107 (research exemptions)".

[Statement two states the Intent of the part in submitting that material - 
something that is also key to any conveyance of IP through the Net IMHO. It 
also separates the uses of the IP from those interested in reprinting the 
IETF's Libraries like Debian and Sun as well as those who are actually 
reprinting the material as part of the IETF's Standards Process itself. This 
addresses uses within and outside of the IETF's process properly IMHO]

[The next two statement's are cleanup to protect the IETF's use models 
further... ]

    3)    "In submitting this IP to the IETF, the submitter's license the 
IETF to reprint this material for any and all uses pursuant to the IETF's 
and the IETF's IP Trust's Operations, including all textual and code or 
digital program content".

[ Statement three deals with the uses by the trust as well... as reaffirming 
Statement two's use for the IETF's Standards Process enabling the Trust to 
operate as it was setup...(BTW - I still dont like the Trust's makeup but 
that's another issue!]

    4)    "In submitting this IP to the IETF the submitter's agree that the 
IETF's rights include any and all textual and program derivatives produced 
by the IETF, its RFC Editor's, its WG's, IETF Meeting's,  or other SDO's 
external to the IETF, including but not limited to the simple reformatting 
of the documents to meet IETF publication and style standards or likewise to 
reflect vetting and other disclosure accomplished through the IETF's WG 
Mailing Lists and Meetings per its Note-Well Process Definitions".

[Statement four says that the derivatives in all forms are the IETF's and 
possibly the IETF's Trust if it wanted to assign them all to it...]

---

I think these four simple rules will allow any and all IP to be transferred 
into the IETF and the intent of that transfer to be included in the process.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:58:36 -0700

Guys - I think that the current IETF submission process is still flawed in 
that it requires that any and all submissions to the IETF for participation 
in its Standards Process become the property of the IETF formally for 'any 
and all uses' whether the IETF dynes to allow that material into its 
publication process or not and this is an issue.

Under contract law and contract must have proper consideration. If the IETF 
refuses to allow proper consideration/compensation for a submission, then 
that submission becomes a gift and the cash value of the gift immediately 
becomes an issue.

Also if the Intent of the submitter is to have the IETF publish the material 
and it doesn't, then the intent of the submission has been violated and as 
such the conveyance is null and void no matter what the IETF's website's 
boilerplate says. Contract Terms are clearly modified by the actions of the 
parties involved whether these contravene terms originally negotiated within 
the 'four corners' of the contract per the Parole Evidence Rule and the 
Statute of Frauds.

Which again brings us back to the value of the IP itself and that any and 
all work-product produced for filing with the IETF or inside the IETF's WG's 
or by other SDO's as part of a joint effort, has a clear and demonstrable 
cash value. The question is what to do about this - and whether the IETF 
(and the Trust)  is/are properly setup as a 501(c) type entities.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: DRAFT minutes from Prague IPR WG meeting

> deficiencies is a simple and easily understood set of conveyance rules 
> which I think should be something like as follows:
>
> Ownership to the ISOC's IETF, the submitter warrants that they are the 
> Legal Owner of those rights or the Legal Agent of the Owner of those 
> rights such that they may act as the Entity controlling those IP rights. 
> The Submitter further warrants that they assume all liability for those 
> acts and acknowledge that they understand  that the IETF's function as the 
> recipient of those IP's is to republish that material as a formal part of 
> its Standards and IP Disclosure Process".
>
> [Statement one essentially says that they (the submitter) have the 
> authority or Power Of Attorney for those works and that they can submit 
> them. Also that they  (the submitter) assume the legal responsibility for 
> those actions and that the IETF is NOT responsible for anything regarding 
> the submission and publishing of controlled IP's... this is more and more 
> a very important thing to deal with IMHO]
>
> Processes 'for any and all reasonable uses' within that Standards 
> Process". They also acknowledge that Research Exemptions under US 
> Copyright Law will only apply to those instances where the reprinting of 
> those documents is performed as part of the IETF's Standards Process and 
> for no other reason. Any other reprinting of the IETF Documents is 
> performed under the IETF's 'outgoing use license' and is not supported 
> under the US Copyright Act's Section 107 (research exemptions)".
>
> something that is also key to any conveyance of IP through the Net IMHO. 
> It also separates the uses of the IP from those interested in reprinting 
> the IETF's Libraries like Debian and Sun as well as those who are actually 
> reprinting the material as part of the IETF's Standards Process itself. 
> This addresses uses within and outside of the IETF's process properly 
> IMHO]
>
> [ Statement three deals with the uses by the trust as well... as 
> reaffirming Statement two's use for the IETF's Standards Process enabling 
> the Trust to operate as it was setup...(BTW - I still dont like the 
> Trust's makeup but that's another issue!]
>
> of the documents to meet IETF publication and style standards or likewise 
> to reflect vetting and other disclosure accomplished through the IETF's WG 
> I think these four simple rules will allow any and all IP to be 
> transferred into the IETF and the intent of that transfer to be included 
> in the process.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Some commetary on what I think are still convoluted documents, I will 
>> keep them to

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:29:17 +0200

I have seen no comments on these minutes (the two messages from Todd 
Glassey with the same subject line seemed to contain no indication that the 
minutes needed correcting), so I'm uploading these to the IETF proceedings 
server.

New versions can be uploaded if needed, so if you see something wrong in 
the minutes, please notify the list.

              Harald Alvestrand

--On 27. mars 2007 15:48 +0200 Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>    Simon (on Jabber) - I sent in a review    Harald: who thinks its ready
> for iesg - no response
> 		San Diego: Somebody else's problem (closed)
> 		Need the ability to do "joint" for joint publication. Need to avoid
> lots of
> 		conflicting ones.
> 		Proposal: RFC Editor's problem (+IAB) – not the WG's issue.
> 	1338 Notices "normally placed at the end" (raised in conjunction with
> nits checker)
> 		Word "normally" was chosen to be non-nonrmative. Don't check.
> 		text for start of ID that summaries responsibilities 		of authors in
> light of bcp 79